Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]

GERMAN POTASH SYNDICATE LOAN BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed without Amendment.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL

MID SOUTHERN UTILITY BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Quality (Complaints)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he proposes to improve both the quality and quantity of coal supplied to domestic users in the Shrewsbury area.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): As I said in answer to a recent Question, the supply and quality of coal for household use is now under urgent consideration. I am informed that the district and regional house coal officers have not received any representations from the merchants in the Shrewsbury area about a shortage of supplies. I am advised that the complaints from consumers received by the local fuel overseer were satisfactorily dealt with within a day or two.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for several months now the ration, or the permitted amount, has not been honoured and, as far as quality is concerned, since the recategorisation by the Coal Board, what

should be "National Coal Board best" is nothing more than third-class rubble? When the right hon. Gentleman talks about there being no complaints, he is quite inaccurate.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have told the House repeatedly that the National Coal Board, after conversations with me, are taking steps to improve both the quantity and quality of the coal. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Of course we cannot get results in a fortnight.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the time that will be required before improvements can be made?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I cannot give an estimate, but I hope it may be fairly soon.

Mr. Shurmer: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is possible to keep this opencast coal away from domestic users?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question, which merely deals with Shrewsbury.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Some of the opencast coal is suitable for domestic use but some of it is certainly not suitable and the Coal Board hope to withdraw it.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the inadequate and inaccurate answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to avoid delivery of non-combustible material in coal supplies; and if, in view of the particulars sent to him concerning Mr. Parsons, 66, Town-court Crescent, Petts Wood, he will make a statement.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the complaints in Caernarvonshire, particularly the town of Caernarvon, about the poor quality of the coal that is supplied; and if he will take action to remedy the position.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In reply to a Question on Monday last, I described the action which has been taken to improve the quality of household coal. I also said that the question of redress for bad quality coal is under review; the


National Coal Board have discussed the matter with the coal merchants, and they are trying to simplify the procedure for dealing with complaints, both by merchants and customers.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that owing to the recent rise of 5s. a ton, consumers will now have their proportion of expenditure increased because they have to pay 5s. a ton extra for all this slate and slurry which is included in their ration?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am hoping that the quality will be improved. Perhaps I might say to the hon. Member that I have read the correspondence he sent from Mr. Parsons. I think Mr. Parsons had a genuine difficulty and I hope that the simplified procedure which may emerge from these discussions may help in cases like this, but in general the present procedure has worked well.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that nearly all these complaints with which he is bombarded would disappear if he would abandon opencast coal mining and get down to deep-mined coal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No sir. If we did that, we would simply have an industrial crisis on a major scale.

Domestic Supplies, Merseyside

Mr. John Tilney: asked the Minister of fuel and power what is the reason for the present shortage of coal on Merseyside

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The cold weather after Easter greatly increased the orders for household coal given to merchants by their customers; at that period of the year, the merchants' stocks are at their lowest point; the Easter holidays reduced the supplies of coal coming forward from the mines; supplies in Lancashire have been further affected by a stoppage at the Mossley Common Colliery at the end of April.

Mr. Tilney: Does not the Minister appreciate that these short deliveries mean that people on Merseyside have not got adequate fuel? Will he take steps to see that the reason for this failure of the National Coal Board are fully explained to the public in Liverpool?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope that my answer will explain the reasons. I hope, too, that the hon. Member will advise any of his constituents who have difficulties to go to the local fuel overseer, who can usually help in a day or two.

Mr. Leslie Hale: If my right hon. Friend says there is a shortage of coal, why is he proposing to close down Moston colliery in Lancashire which employs, and can usefully employ for many scores of years, five or six hundred men?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to put that question down, and I will deal with it.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: Does the Minister mean by his original reply that the distribution of coal is not planned on the assumption that it is a little colder in winter than in summer?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, certainly not. A number of contributing causes occurred together this year and unfortunately supplies were not adequate over the whole country to meet the needs of that time. It was due to many causes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL SUPPLIES

Car-Hire Services, Isle of Skye

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps were taken this year by the regional petroleum officer to ascertain that Hallin, in the Isle of Skye, was adequately served with car-hire facilities; and whether he or a deputy visited the district to ascertain the conditions at first hand.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the need for economy in administration, my officers have had instructions not to make long journeys, or to be away from their regional headquarters, unless there is some useful purpose to be served. The evidence already available shows that there is no need for more hire cars at the village of Hallin, which already has three such cars, and a fourth car not far away.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Does the Minister realise, in the first place, how important transport is to these remote regions? In the second place, does he not think it is most important to


ascertain at first hand the conditions actually obtaining in these districts? Further, is he aware that in the Hallin peninsula there are three cars which are all very busy?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do realise the importance of transport. Therefore, I went into this matter very carefully and I discovered that not one of these four cars—the fourth is only two and a half miles from Hallin—is at present taking the maximum allowance for car-hire work, and none has asked for an increase. It is plain that with the existing cars adequate service is being given and more could be done without adding a fifth car.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give the names and addresses of the 17 applicants on the regional petroleum officer's waiting list who have a prior claim to establishing a car-hire service before Mr. Bain, of Hallin, Isle of Skye.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Applications for petrol allowances are regarded as confidential, and I regret, therefore, I cannot give the information asked for by the noble Lord.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Does the Minister realise that in the Hallin peninsula it is 20 miles from the nearest town of any size, and that to refuse a petrol application there is equivalent to refusing an application to someone in Windsor because there are taxis in London?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that the answer which I gave to the previous Question shows that there is not a need for further car-hire services in that area.

Disabled Persons (Allowances)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in connection with the petrol allowance to disabled and invalid persons, he will give the approximate total amount of petrol granted in respect of the period 1st January, 1950, to 30th March, 1950; and if the Government will now consider increasing the allowance to ease the burden which many of these people are experiencing.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The petrol allowances made to disabled persons and invalids

vary according to the degree of disability of the applicant. They may be combined with allowances issued for business or other purposes. No separate record is kept of the coupons issued to disabled persons and to invalids and I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give the estimate for which the hon. Member has asked. I have no evidence of a need for any general increase in these allowances; but if the hon. Member has such evidence, I shall be glad to consider it, and if he will give me information about any cases of hardship of which he is aware, I will look into them at once.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that I have from his Midland regional office a file nearly a foot deep dealing with applications from disabled persons in the South Worcester area? Why is it that the Government are so unsympathetic and so lacking in understanding?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that the disabled persons, including disabled ex-Service men, have been dealt with very sympathetically, indeed generously. I have already said that if the hon. Member will send me the case he has in mind, I will look into it.

Mr. De la Bère: It is the greatest scandal in Britain.

Anglo-American Negotiations

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in the Anglo-American oil negotiations.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The discussions are still going on, and it would therefore, I think, be unwise for me to make a statement about them today.

Colonel Clarke: Does not the Minister think that, in view of the widespread rumours that are circulating with regard to these negotiations, it would be helpful if an authoritative statement as to their progress could be made, and does he not think that that would relieve the minds of the many important interests concerned?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member would not wish me to say anything that would cut across the discussions. After careful consideration, I think there is nothing useful that I can say today.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Can the Minister say when he might be in a position to make a statement in view of the fact that these negotiations are so important and that if they were really successful they might result in a big increase in the petrol ration or even the abolition of petrol rationing altogether?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Both the United States authorities and ourselves are most anxious to reach a result. I hope that may be soon, but I am afraid I cannot make a prediction.

Overseas Visitors

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what estimate he has made of the petrol that will be consumed by overseas visitors, other than those from Canada and the United States of America, during the year.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: It is estimated that the petrol used in 1950 by overseas visitors, from countries other than Canada and the United States, will be about 12,000 or 13,000 tons.

Mr. Williams: Would the Minister consider giving a third more, as many of these overseas visitors are very aggrieved because people coming from the United States receive 33⅓ per cent. more petrol than they do? As it is a small amount, could the Minister give those visitors an extra third?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member's question is the first adverse comment I have heard about the decision to give more petrol to dollar visitors than to others. I think it is generally understood how important it is to increase our dollar tourist traffic.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Minister not realise that visitors from the Commonwealth—Malaya and elsewhere—are making just as large a contribution to the earning of dollars?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We have largely increased the allowances to visitors from the Commonwealth.

Imports

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the percentage dollar content in imports of petrol from Bahrein, Kuwait, Qatar, Trucial Oman, British West Indies, Dutch West India

Islands, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, respectively.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I regret that it is impossible to calculate the dollar cost of petrol, as distinct from the dollar cost of the other oil products with which it is produced. It would be misleading to calculate the costs of an oil company's operations in one territory alone; most companies operate in many places, including some not mentioned by the hon. Member. In some of the territories which he does mention, the oil is produced by British companies; in others, by companies from the United States; in yet others, by both British and American companies. It is estimated that the average dollar content of oil produced by all British controlled companies is about 30 per cent. of its value; the average dollar cost of oil imported into the sterling area by United States companies is at present about 90 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Oil Refinery, Fawley

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what was the date on which his Department was first approached by the Anglo-American Oil Company in regard to the expansion of the Fawley refinery.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In August, 1946.

Pipelines, Middle East (Contracts)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the value of the contracts held by British manufacturers which have been cancelled because of the inability of Middle East Pipelines, Limited, to secure wayleave rights from the Government of Iraq; and, in view of the serious effects of this cancellation, both to the main contractors and the subcontractors, if he will arrange for reconsideration of the decision to postpone construction of the pipeline until the autumn of this year and make the necessary representations in order to secure these wayleave rights.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I understand that Middle East Pipelines, Limited, have cancelled no contracts with the main contractors; but my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have no information


about what the main contractors may have done with their sub-contractors. Middle East Pipelines must themselves decide if and when they will proceed with their plans; I regret that it does not lie with me to do what he asks.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when last month Harland and Wolff of Belfast notified sub-contractors in my constituency and elsewhere that all work was to be suspended they asked for details of the storage charges on the assumption that work would be resumed in October, 1953? Surely Middle East Pipelines must have advised their subcontractors that they did not anticipate that they would be able to resume before that date?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I suppose that they must consider the political conditions of the region. I have no information other than that I understood that it had been postponed for a year, that is, from the autumn of last year until the autumn of 1950. I shall be glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend sends me.

Electricity Distribution (Restrictions)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now arrange for the relaxation of the restrictions imposed at his request upon the supply of electricity to houses which have an alternative source of lighting where the existing facilities are unsatisfactory.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In any case where a householder would suffer hardship if electricity were not installed, the area board may, in their discretion, provide it. But unfortunately there is still a shortage of generating plant, and the amount of capital allocated to the development of electricity distribution has been reduced; in consequence, demand exceeds supply, and it is impossible to give electricity to all the householders who want it. For the present, therefore, priority must be given to industry, to farms, and to new houses which have no other means of lighting.

Mr. Vane: May I ask the Minister when he thinks he will be able to relax these regulations? Cannot he see that they are most unfair to the many people who put in applications years ago and who still see no chance of obtaining a

supply of electricity, while there are new houses with many other amenities which have it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I fully understand that and the grievances involved. It really depends on the scale of the capital investment programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN TRAWLERS (PROSECUTIONS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Attorney-General how many captains of foreign trawlers were prosecuted for fishing in British territorial waters in 1948 and 1949, respectively; and what were the results of these prosecutions.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I have been asked to reply. One prosecution took place in Jersey in 1948 and one in Scotland in 1949. Convictions were secured in both cases, the penalties imposed in the first case being a fine of £10 and in the second of £50 with forfeiture of gear in use and fish in the net.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether these were Russians?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (REPORT)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General what steps are being taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Report of the Committee on the Limitation of Actions.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of this Committee but I am unable to say when it will prove possible to introduce legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman use his best endeavours to rescue these useful, and I think non-controversial, proposals by this Committee from unmerited oblivion?

The Attorney-General: I would like to see the law relating to this matter tidied up, but the proposals of the Committee are not entirely non-controversial.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (POLICE INQUIRIES)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir W. SMITHERS:

24. To ask the Attorney-General if he will state the results of the inquiries made by Scotland Yard into corrupt practices involving his Department's disposal boards.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Before asking this Question, may I point out that it was originally put down to the Minister of Supply? The complaint is not against the officials of the Attorney-General's office, but against the Ministry of Supply. If I shall embarrass the right hon. and learned Gentleman and he would like me to postpone the Question for a week, I will gladly do so.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I think it right to preface my answer by pointing out that the Question does not involve my Department, which has no disposal boards, but involves the Ministry of Supply. I have, however, been asked to reply to it.
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a matter which has been the subject of unauthorised statements in the Press recently. In the course of police inquiries into allegations of various criminal offences which were brought to my notice some considerable time ago, further allegations were made that several persons who were formerly but are not now officials of the Ministry of Supply had been guilty of corrupt practices in the years 1946 and 1947. Police inquiries into those allegations are still proceeding.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask whether the principle of Government retrospective legislation would apply to these people, and also has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen a report of the remarks of a certain magistrate in a court of summary jurisdiction in London?

Mr. Mikardo: Is it not obvious from the original answer that the amount of publicity and fuss there has been over this is totally disproportionate to the matter; and does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that there would have been no such publicity and no Question

from any hon. Gentleman opposite in any case—and there are many—in which this sort of thing happens in private industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Cheeses (Variety)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Food what information he has on the variety of cheeses available in the Shrewsbury area.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): I believe that most of the ration in Shrewsbury consists of home produced Cheshire cheese and the rest mainly of New Zealand cheddar with small quantities of processed cheese and Canadian Cheshire. There is, of course, a wide selection of unrationed cheeses. The variety of these is so wide I cannot possibly list them.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some indication why the choice of rationed cheeses is so much less in Shrewsbury than in London?

Mr. Webb: My impression was to the contrary, and when I looked at the answer I began to worry about complaints from other parts of the country, including London.

Farm Workers (Packed Meals)

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Minister of Food whether he is prepared to contribute to the loss sustained in an experiment to supply packed meals to farm workers in an area of East Suffolk which was started by the Women's Voluntary Service and National Farmers' Union with the encouragement of his Department.

Mr. Webb: My Department gave all the help it could to this particular scheme, as it does to similar schemes: but it cannot accept financial responsibility for them.

Mr. Hare: In view of the fact that the loss involved is only something under £5, and as the information obtained by the Ministry as a result of this experiment was most valuable, does not the Minister think that, as a matter of principle, he should contribute?

Mr. Webb: But Parliament has not voted me that particular £5. In any event, our relationship with the W.V.S. is quite friendly. In other aspects of the very valuable work they are doing, for which we are very grateful, they do in fact have cover, and on balance I think they feel that they are all right.

Ministry's Staff

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what reduction in the staff of his Department has been made possible by his decision to withdraw the Meals in Establishments Orders; and what will be the consequent saving to public funds.

Mr. Webb: The operation of the Order has never required more than a few staff and the saving will, therefore, be negligible.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the right hon. Gentleman uses the word "negligible ", does he mean there will be no reduction of staff or that there will be a small reduction? Will he say which?

Mr. Webb: The difficulty is that each of these particular changes which we make does not in itself dispense with a particular section of the staff. It is the overall effect of a large number of such changes. The total effect will be that the staff of our regional organisations will fall by over 5,000 in the six months ending 1st April this year, and that is the way we work it. On any particular aspect of change, it is impossible to measure the precise number of staff involved.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Minister say whether that change leading up to 1st April this year has anything whatever to do with the revocation of an Order which was not revoked until some weeks afterwards?

Mr. Webb: It was anticipated.

Vegetables (Distribution Costs)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider setting up a small committee to investigate the finances of the vegetable trade from the grower to the consumer, so that the public can know the costs incurred.

Mr. Webb: I do not think that a committee could provide any information which is not already available to the Government and now under examination.

Mr. Janner: Is not the Minister aware that very many housewives are unable to purchase vegetables and fruit owing to the very high prices, and does not he think consumers would welcome more information in this matter so that they could use their judgment as to when to follow his advice to hold off buying? Also, if there is some justification for the prices, is not it advisable that the public should know; and is not this a method of doing it?

Mr. Webb: We have a great deal of information about this matter. The question of publication does not, I think, arise at the moment. What is needed is action, and we are very concerned about that.

Sir Herbert Williams: Would the Minister institute a weather planning department, and then this difficulty would not arise in the future?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Would the Minister consider it desirable, in order that the public might know the facts, that he should publish a statement of returns to the growers, because the vegetables they are now producing do not provide them with any reasonable profit on their production

Czechoslovak Plums (Imports)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food how many hundredweight, in total, of plums, including fresh, bottled, tinned, preserved, etc., were imported from Czechoslovakia last year or are being imported now.

Mr. Webb: When the hon. Member asked me on 27th March about imports of plums from Czechoslokia, I assumed he referred to fresh plums and I am sorry if the information I then gave was inadequate.
We have imported no fresh plums from Czechoslovakia during this period. During 1949, 1,693 cwt. of tinned and 40 cwt. of bottled plums (including greengages, damsons and mirabelles) were imported. During the first three months of 1950, 2,832 cwt. of tinned and 137 cwt. of bottled plums, plus 4 cwt. of crystallised plums and figs, were imported.

Mr. Bossom: While thanking the Minister for this rather belated explanation of a totally inaccurate and misleading


answer to a Question, I think it very unfortunate that he did not do this and give the information nearly a month—certainly three weeks—ago. Is he aware that, as a result of his policy of importing plums of all sorts from other countries outside the Empire, many of the farmers in Kent had to leave their plums on the trees because they could not afford to pick them and lose money on them?

Mr. Webb: We have to balance all these considerations, but I am quite sure that our controls over the import of foreign plums are adequate.

Captain Duncan: Were these plums imported under open general licence or by his Department?

Mr. Webb: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Mellish: Can the Minister arrange with the farmers in Kent who are suffering great hardship to let the people of Bermondsey know, and we will come down and pick the plums ourselves?

Mr. Bossom: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this does not occur again? He imported 13,000 tons of plums last year and did the damage to our Kentish farmers on which I have remarked. Please do not do it again.

Cargoes (Russian Ships)

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Minister of Food to what extent it is his policy to charter Russian ships to carry food cargoes to Britain when British shipping is available.

Mr. Webb: To the extent required by normal commercial practice.

Mr. Bevins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the difference in conditions, rates of pay and of taxation, it is most unreasonable to expect British tramps to compete with the Soviet-owned ships?

Mr. Webb: So far this year we have chartered only two Russian vessels.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Does not the Minister appreciate that in this matter he is not in the same position as an ordinary private trader, and that when he charters Soviet ships it is taken to be an act of policy on the part of the Government?

Will he try to base his transactions upon that criterion?

Mr. Webb: I myself should like to keep politics out of this and to settle our requirements on purely commercial grounds.

Cheese (Roadmen)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the further representations made to him by the Urban District Councils' Association, he will reconsider his decision not to issue extra cheese rations to roadmen employed by urban district councils which have large rural areas.

Mr. Webb: I am now considering these further representations.;

Sir W. Smithers: In considering this matter, will the Minister try to use his common sense and not to be so bound up with red tape? Will he try to give consideration to these urban councils which have large rural areas?

Mr. Webb: I will go even further; I will use my common sense.

Breakfast Foods (Consumption)

Sir William Darling: asked the Minister of Food what is the respective annual consumption of dollar-costing imported and home-produced breakfast foods; and what plans he has to increase the consumption of the latter.

Mr. Webb: Three thousand two hundred tons and 226,600 tons respectively for the year ending February, 1950. I think we had better let people decide for themselves whether they want to eat more home-produced breakfast foods.

Sir W. Darling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is most desirable that people should eat home-produced wheat and cereal foods rather than these imported ones which cost dollars?

Mr. Webb: In these matters I believe in freedom of choice and not in thrusting food down people's throats.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the Minister say why he continues to subsidise these wheat foods and refuses to give any subsidy to oatmeal, which is far more nourishing?

Ministry's Advertising

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of "Food Facts" and other Departmental advertising is devoted to recommending home-produced foods and imported foods, respectively.

Mr. Webb: During 1949–50 the proportions were approximately three for home-produced to two imported.

Sir W. Darting: Does the Minister think that that is a proper allocation of his advertising space, and should it not be his duty to encourage home-produced foods to a larger extent?

Mr. Webb: I think that on balance that is a fair allocation.

Bread

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of a considerable demand for an alternative bread to standard loaf; and if he will allow bakers to meet this demand where it exists.

Mr. Webb: The present Order already provides for the manufacture of several alternatives to the national loaf.

Sir W. Darling: Is the Minister aware that the "several alternatives" are very limited and that in most instances they amount to only one, and that is somewhat restricted?

Mr. Webb: Offhand, I should say that there are about 20 to 30 different varieties.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is the Minister aware that flour millers are confident that they could produce a white loaf cheaper and better than the standard loaf today? Has he consulted any flour miller on this question?

Points Scheme

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the hardships caused to housewives by the points reductions, he will indicate when the scheme will be reviewed in the light of complaints made.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the difficulties experienced by housewives throughout the country in connection with the recent reduction in the number of points from 24 to 16, as regards the number required for one tin of syrup and one pound of

sultanas, the Government will consider down-pointing these two articles of food without further delay.

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Food whether he will reduce the points value of sweet biscuits and syrup in order to relieve the difficulties caused to mothers of young children due to the shortage of sugar.

Mr. Webb: As I have already told the House, I had these possible difficulties very much in mind when I announced the recent points changes, and I promised to review them after a month's experience. That review will be made, but I would rather not anticipate it now.

Mr. Yates: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a widespread feeling among housewives that, since the changes have been made, they have not been able to obtain fair supplies of rice, biscuits, syrup and other foods, as they could before; and that there is no compensating value in giving them goods they do not want? Will he give an assurance to the House that this position will be remedied?

Mr. Webb: I am fully aware of the difficulties. We foresaw them. This is an inevitable part of the unwinding of a complicated rationing system. We cannot have more points than there are goods available. That would be silly. It does not help to solve the problem merely to inflate the currency of points. I am aware of the difficulties, and I hope that the review which is about to take place will find an adequate solution.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that already, in less than three weeks, many shops are stocking much of the stuff that is on points which cannot be released because of the inadequate number of points available?

Cream (Sale)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to announce his proposals for permitting the sale of cream.

Mr. Webb: No, Sir, but I hope to be able to make a further statement very shortly, possibly next week.

Sir W. Smithers: Could not the right hon. Gentleman do it before the strawberry season comes on?

Meat, Suffolk

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of the meat allocated to Suffolk butchers to meet the domestic ration is locally produced on Suffolk farms.

Mr. Webb: About half of the meat supplied to Suffolk butchers during the past month was produced or fattened on Suffolk farms.

Mr. Hare: Is the Minister aware that his statement will be received with astonishment by people in my part of the world, because their general view is that their ration has chiefly comprised ancient Argentinian cow?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL LAND (COMPULSORY PURCHASE)

Mr. Vane: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that in cases where a public inquiry is held with a view to compulsory purchase of agricultural land by a Government Department, a representative of the Department concerned shall be called before the inquiry to give his evidence and be subject to cross-examination.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am assuming that the Question refers to the attendance at these inquiries of a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Such representation is unnecessary since adequate arrangements exist to obtain the views of other Government Departments who may have an interest in such an acquisition before the Order is made.

Mr. Vane: Does the Prime Minister think that it is fair that Departmental views, in particular views of the Ministry of Agriculture under these circumstances, should be given to the acquiring Department in private, while those of other interested parties are given in public and open to cross-examination?

The Prime Minister: I think it is right that when a Government proposal is put forward the views of all the Departments should be ascertained and the thing agreed before it is put to the inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the difficulties confronting the fishing industry, if he

will appoint a special Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture to deal specifically with this subject.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Prime Minister aware that, owing to the fact that there is no regulating of the dumping of foreign imports, there are over 150 ships lying idle at present, and over 1,500 men unemployed in the fishing industry? Will he say what he proposes to do about it?

The Prime Minister: That does not seem to arise from this Question.

Mr. Boothby: Is the Prime Minister aware that every side of the fishing industry is simply being left to collapse, and apparently no Department is taking the faintest interest whatever?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is quite wrong.

Miss Irene Ward: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those who are interested in fishing think that there is too much interest in agriculture and too little in fishing in the present Department presided over by the Minister of Agriculture?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what action the various Departments are taking with regard to what he says is being done?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, if the hon. Member will put down a Question.

At end of Questions—

Mr. D. Marshall: Owing to the unsatisfactory reply I received from the Prime Minister, may I seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance, namely,
That owing to the dumping of foreign imports the whole of the fishing industry is faced with ruin, that already large unemployment has occurred, a large number of fishing vessels are tied up and that Government action is urgently required to prevent complete chaos in the industry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asked my permission that he may move the Adjournment under Rule 8 of Standing Orders on a matter of urgent public importance. Of course, it should be a definite matter of urgent public importance. As a matter of fact, the


Motion he has read out is not one which comes under Rule 8. It does not really qualify as a definite matter of urgent public importance, and therefore I cannot accept the Motion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESPIONAGE (CANADIAN MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he will disclose the names of the four spies the Canadian Minister for External Affairs stated on 1st May, 1950, were sent to the authorities here; and where they are employed today.

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir"; the second part does not therefore arise.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what interpretation he puts on the speech made by the Minister of External Affairs in Canada on this subject?

The Prime Minister: We have been in consultation with the Canadian authorities. The position is very well understood on both sides.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Military Permits (Fees)

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will reduce the cost of 28s. 6d. for a military permit to visit the British zones of Germany or Austria, valid for more than 60 days, since this charge is in addition to that of 14s. 6d., the cost of a passport.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): As the fee quoted by the hon. Member is not correct, I am circulating the correct figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. While His Majesty's Government are generally in favour of reductions, I regret that I am unable to hold out the hope that these particular fees will be reduced.

Mr. Lindsay: Whatever the exact figure may be, is the Minister aware that it is rather hard on students, for example, to have to pay such a high fee, and is not it possible for them to get a stamp on their passport, like a visa, at a much lower cost?

Mr. Davies: I will consider that suggestion.

Following are the details:
The scale of fees for permits for Germany and Austria is fixed by agreement with the United States and French authorities and is as follows:





s.
d.


Transit
…
…
7
0


Repeated Transit
…
…
14
6


Entry
…
…
14
6


Repeated Entry
…
…
28
6

The validity of permits for Germany is 120 days and for Austria 60 days. In Austria extensions up to 15 days are granted without charge.

Militarised Formations

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information His Majesty's Government has about German military and para-military formation in the Eastern zone of Germany.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I have nothing to add at present to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) on 5th April. The existence of these illegal militarised formations is a factor which has inevitably entered into consideration during the recent tripartite discussions on German policy.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Does not the Minister consider that these forces are an entire flouting of international agreements, and does he not regard them as a menace?

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that this matter has recently been discussed, I would prefer not to add anything to my reply.

Prisoners of War (Soviet Union)

Mr. Nigel Birch: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made by the West German Government to the Allied High Commission with regard to German prisoners of war and civilians detained in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; whether he has considered these representations; and what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action it is proposed to take, in view of the German protests to the British and other


Allied Commissioners, against the Russian announcement that all German prisoners in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been released, at a time when a very large number of such prisoners are unaccounted for.

Mr. Birch: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the West German Government about the number of German prisoners of war and civilians in Russian hands; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement issued on 12th May, 1950, by the three Foreign Ministers on the repatriation of German prisoners of war from Soviet Russia. There is nothing I can usefully add to that statement.

Mr. Birch: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is his estimate of the number of German prisoners who have died in Russia, and of how many are still alive there?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. Owing to the lack of reliable information, no accurate estimates, either of the number of prisoners still in Russia or of those who have died there, can be made.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Cannot the Government give serious consideration to making a protest in the name of this country that will be to some extent the equivalent of the abhorrence with which the whole nation regards this behaviour?

Mr. Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not seen a statement made by the three Foreign Ministers?

Mr. Nicholson: I know that, but I want something more than that.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is my hon. Friend aware that for several years hon. Members of the party opposite subscribed to the policy that most Huns were killable and few curable?

Mr. Pickthorn: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean to tell the House that it is impossible to make any estimate of the number of prisoners who have been held by Russia and of the number who have been returned? Is that what he

means the House to understand? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I did not ask you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was really referring to me when he said "I did not ask you."

Mr. Pickthorn: I should be delighted to have your approval, Mr. Speaker, but I apologise for my misuse of language. May I now have the answer from the Minister?

Mr. Davies: Quite clearly, attempts are made, but we do not consider that any figures which might bear on the matter are sufficiently reliable to be taken into account.

Mr. Birch: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, at any rate so far as our own zone in Germany is concerned, that we are responsible for this matter, because the Germans have no diplomatic representation, and it is our business to get the most accurate information if we can?

Mr. Davies: Here we have what I consider a vigorous statement issued by the three Foreign Ministers responsible for the government of Germany. That statement was issued as recently as 12th May, and I think that a little time should be given to see whether it brings any results.

Agrarian Reform

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the basic Control Commission law requiring the Governments of the German Länder to expropriate farmland, where farms exceeded a given size, is still in force.

Mr. Ernest Davies: A British Military Government Ordinance laid down the general lines on which agrarian reform should be carried out in the British zone and is still in force. Detailed legislation implementing the ordinance in the individual Länder is likewise in force.

Mr. Vane: Can the hon. Gentleman say what advantage there is in keeping these ordinances in force, in the face of informed agricultural opinion in Germany, unless it is the same as that referred to last week and is only to please hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. This is a question of land reform in Germany, and we are not aware that the majority of the German population is by any means opposed to this one.

Mr. Vane: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that this particular policy does not deserve the title of land reform, as it affects only a comparatively small number of farms in the British zone, and the land is not going to be sufficient to settle any large number of people? It is a purely political move and nothing else.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the hon. Gentleman think of any legal or moral justification for the use of the forces of an occupying Power for making what is a social arrangement?

Exports (Prices)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that manufactures of German origin are becoming a serious menace to British exports, due to the low prices at which these are offered in foreign markets; and whether he will take steps to stop the export of such goods at artificially low prices.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I cannot agree with the hon. Member that German exports constitute a serious menace to our export trade. They would have to be increased many times before they represented in general a threat equivalent to the German prewar export rate. Nor can I agree, as a result of exhaustive inquiries within the High Commission, that prices are kept lower by artificial or unfair means. There is therefore no justification for action by the High Commission to interfere with the German export trade. Indeed a principal concern of the High Commission is to diminish Germany's dependence on external aid for which an increase of exports is necessary.

Mr. Watkinson: Will not the hon. Gentleman look at this very vital matter again, particularly from the point of view that German exports may be going to neighbouring countries, from which they are then exported again, for example, to Brazil, where I know that German competition is a very serious factor against our export trade? This is only the beginning. It should be looked at now and stopped.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that the same reply was given by his predecessor four years ago about Japanese exports; and will he see that the same policy of waiting until it is too late is not again adopted?

Captain Waterhouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently the Minister of Health stated that he had bought glassware in Germany in order to drive down prices in this country?

Mr. Davies: This matter has recently been gone into most carefully by the High Commission, who appointed a commission to investigate the matter. It has been concluded that, at the present time, there is no risk of this excessive competition.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. AND EASTERN EUROPE

British Nationals and Embassy Staffs

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) the number of cases in the last two years in which protests have been made to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its associated countries in regard to the treatment of British nationals and employees at British embassies and consulates in those countries; and how many of those cases have been satisfactorily concluded;
(2) if he will tabulate the number of cases in the last two years in which protests have been made to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its associated countries in regard to the treatment of British nationals and employees at British embassies and consulates in those countries; showing what result has been achieved in each case.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I propose to circulate the required information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The Soviet Union
A memorandum left with Mr. Vyshinsky by Sir Maurice Peterson on 28th April, 1949, of which copies are in the Libraries of the House, recapitulated the following cases of interference with the staff of H.M. Embassy, which had all been the subject of previous protests:

(1) Mrs. Ackman and Mrs. Whitehead, who were employed as telephonists in H.M. Embassy, disappeared in October, 1948.


(2) Mrs. Burke, another telephonist, was so intimidated by the police that she attempted suicide.
(3) Mr. and Mrs. Valukin, who were employees of long standing, left H.M. Embassy precipitately in November, 1948, presumably as a result of police threats.
(4) Margareta Yost, a housemaid at H.M. Embassy, was threatened, at the end of 1948, with police action if she did not leave.
(5) Miss Peters, another telephonist at H.M. Embassy, disappeared on 17th January, 1949, after the police had tried to persuade her to leave her employment.

Copies of the Soviet reply, dated 20th May, 1949, are also in the Libraries of the House. It rejected the assertions contained in Sir Maurice Peterson's memorandum, and stated that questions about the relations between the Soviet authorities and Soviet citizens could not be the concern of H.M. Embassy, wherever the citizens might work.

The remaining case is that of

(6) Private Frank Kelly, a British soldier who was arrested in the Soviet Zone of Germany in 1946 and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for alleged espionage. H.M. Embassy have made repeated representations to the Soviet authorities about him, asking in particular that arrangements should be made for a British representative to visit him but without effect.

Bulgaria
Protests, all unavailing, have been made to the Bulgarian authorities in connection with the following British persons:

(1) Commander Cowgill, R.N., Naval Attaché, who was treated discourteously whilst on a visit to Bourgas and Varna, on 28th and 29th May, 1948.
(2) Mr. E. Manolov, a British missionary in Bulgaria who was arrested on or about the 26th July, 1948, charged with offences under the Bulgarian currency regulations, and was held incommunicado. He was released on 26th March, 1949, after serving a term of imprisonment.
(3) Mr. J. Adams, British Pro-Consul, who was declared persona non grata by the Bulgarian authorities on the 17th August, 1948, on the ground that he had indulged in black market transactions and espionage.
(4) Mr. D. Greenhill, First Secretary of H.M. Legation in Sofia, whose recall was demanded by the Bulgarian authorities on the 9th March.
(5) Mr. Blakeway, First Secretary (Information) at H.M. Legation at Sofia, whose recall was requested by the Bulgarian authorities on the 29th July, 1949, without any reason being given.

Czechoslovakia

(1) On 24th May, 1948, H.M. Ambassador in Prague protested against the expulsion of Mr. Karl Robson, "News Chronicle" correspondent in Czechoslovakia. The protest was rejected and Mr. Robson expelled.

(2) On 11th June, 1948, H.M. Ambassador protested against the expulsion of Mr. Alec Lawrenson, "Daily Telegraph" correspondent in Czechoslovakia. No reply was returned to the Note of protest, and Mr. Lawrenson was expelled.
(3) On 28th September, 1948, H.M. Consul at Bratislava, protested orally to the local authorities against the arrest of Mrs. J. B. Ellis, a British subject by marriage, on a charge of committing a currency offence. Mrs. Ellis was fined and released.
(4) On 13th October, 1948, H.M. Ambassador protested against charges of espionage publicly made against Group Captain Merton, the Air Attaché at H.M. Embassy. The charges were not retracted, and Group Captain Merton was withdrawn.
(5) On 18th October, 1948, H.M. Ambassador protested against the arrest of Mr. Wallis, Information Officer at H.M. Embassy. Mr. Wallis was released after a few hours of detention, and the Czechoslovak authorities offered a partial apology for their conduct.
(6) On 9th December, 1948, H.M. Ambassador protested against the expulsion of Mr. Gillam, British Council lecturer at the University of Olomouc. The protest was rejected and Mr. Gillam expelled.
(7) On 25th March, 1949, H.M. Ambassador protested against the expulsion of Captain Philip Wildash, British Military Permit Officer in Prague. In a series of Notes, the Czechoslovak Government upheld their charges of anti-state activities against Captain Wildash, who was eventually expelled.
(8) On 18th October, 1949, H.M. Ambassador protested against the demand for the withdrawal of Mr. Knott, an employee of the Commercial Secretariat of H.M. Embassy. The Czechoslovak Government reiterated their charges against him, and Mr. Knott was withdrawn.
(9) On 15th December, 1949, H.M. Ambassador entered a formal protest against the detention of Mr. Ernest Robinson, a British resident of long standing in Czechoslovakia. Mr. Robinson, who was only detained for one hour, was released before the protest was delivered, and was expelled from Czechoslovakia.

Hungary.
Protests have been made to the Hungarian authorities in connection with the following British persons:

(1) Mr. K. Elliott, an official of Unilever, Ltd., who was arrested on 26th September, 1948, without justification and held incommunicado. Mr. Elliott was released on 6th October, 1948.
(2) Mr. W. Harrison, electrician employed at the British Legation, who on 1st July, 1949, was interrogated for four hours under duress. No satisfactory reply was received to a strongly worded Note (and five reminders) deploring this breach of diplomatic immunity. Mr. Harrison subsequently returned to the United Kingdom.
(3) Mrs. Martin (alias Bone), Hungarian by birth and British by marriage, who disappeared on 1st October, 1949, the day on


which she booked a passage by 'plane to Prague. Repeated requests for information both to the Czech and Hungarian Governments have failed to elicit her present whereabouts.
(4) Mr. Edgar Sanders, a British businessman resident in Hungary, who was arrested on 22nd November, 1949, and held incommunicado despite many protests. Mr. Sanders was tried on a charge of "espionage" and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment. He was not allowed to be represented by a British lawyer.
(5) Mr. E. P. Southby. First Secretary Commercial, and
(6) Lieut.-Colonel Capron, Assistant Military Attaché, who were both "implicated" in the trial of Mr. Sanders, and their recall demanded. Protests were made at this unjustified action but were not effective.
(7) Mr. C. W. Lamerton, a British businessman resident in Hungary who disappeared on the 11th April, 1950. Repeated enquiries to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs produced no information as to his whereabouts. On 7th May, Mr. Lamerton was forcibly expelled from Hungary into Austria after having been held under arrest for 3½ weeks, incommunicado.

Poland.

(1) H.M. Ambassador in Warsaw has made numerous representations to the Polish authorities about the arrest, on 13th May, 1949, of Mrs. Halina Firth. This lady, a British subject by marriage and an employee of H.M. Embassy, was sentenced on 9th March, 1950, to three years' imprisonment for aiding an escaped prisoner. As a result of H.M. Ambassador's repeated representations a British representative was allowed to visit her immediately before the trial.
(2) Mr. R. J. Tilbury, a British business agent resident in Warsaw, was in August, 1949, refused an agent's licence and an extension of his residence permit. Representations in London and Warsaw were unsuccessful, and Mr. Tilbury had to leave in September, 1949.
(3) On 21st March, 1950, H.M. Ambassador protested against the behaviour of the Polish authorities in arresting Mr. Otakar Kornhauser, a British subject by naturalisation, holding him incommunicado, for over six weeks, and only admitting that they held him on the day before his release. The Polish reply was unsatisfactory.

Roumania.
Protests, all unavailing, have been made to the Roumanian authorities in connection with the following British persons:

(1) Messrs. Robinson and Watson, members of H.M. Legation in Bucharest, whose recall was demanded by the Roumanian authorities on the 9th December, 1948.
(2) Mr. Sarell, First Secretary at H.M. Legation at Bucharest and at the time Chargé d'Affaires, who was seized in the streets of Bucharest on the night of 25th July and detained by the Roumanian police for two hours. His recall was subsequently demanded by the Roumanian authorities on the

ground that he indulged in activities which were not in accord with his diplomatic status.
(3) Miss Anne Samuelli, M. Constantin Mugur and Madame Eleanor Bunca, all Roumanian employees of H.M. Legation in Bucharest, were arrested on or about 25th July, 1949. Repeated requests for information about their cases met with no response. They were apparently held in arrest until April, 1950, when they were found guilty of treason and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment.

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information with regard to the present whereabouts of Mr. Lamerton, a British subject who disappeared in Budapest in early April last.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am glad to be able to state that Mr. Lamerton is now in this country.

Mr. Haire: While noting that this gentleman has returned to this country—and we are glad of it—might I ask my hon. Friend what information was given by the Hungarian Government to the British Legation at the time he disappeared and what steps were taken to protect the gentleman?

Mr. Davies: We received no information from the Hungarian authorities, but His Majesty's Legation, having received information of the disappearance of this gentleman, persistently inquired of the Hungarian authorities as to his whereabouts.

Professor Savory: What was the charge against him?

Mr. Davies: He was questioned for a considerable period, but no specific charge was made against Mr. Lamerton.

Mr. Haire: Is any apology being asked for?

Mr. Davies: We are making a protest to the Hungarian authorities on several grounds; first, that they forcibly expelled a British subject; secondly, that he was held incommunicado for several days; and, thirdly, that the Hungarian authorities persistently denied knowledge of the whereabouts of Mr. Lamerton.

Professor Savory: Are we demanding compensation?

Mr. Davies: We are first making a protest.

Sir H. Williams: As the Hungarians are vitally dependent on us as their chief market, why do we not hit them where they can understand it?

Mr. Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that we suspended trade negotiations with Hungary as a reprisal for certain other acts of this kind.

Sir H. Williams: I am not talking about negotiations, but about trade.

British Journalists

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British journalists have been asked to leave European countries under Communist government; and which are the countries concerned.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to a similar question in the House on 3rd May.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many foreign journalists have been turned out of Britain?

Mr. Davies: None, Sir. In principle we do not consider that we should descend to the level of those who expel respectable journalists on trumped up and frivolous charges. We prefer to maintain the freedom of the Press.

British Council (Czechoslovakia)

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many persons are now employed by the British Council in countries under Soviet influence; what is the total cost of outlay by the British Council in such countries; and whether, in view of all the existing circumstances, it is now proposed to discontinue these services.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The British staff of the British Council in Eastern European countries under Soviet influence totals 24. The total cost of operation within these countries is £86,319. It is not proposed to discontinue these services so long as it is possible to continue them.

Mr. Donner: Has not the time come to recognise the futility of maintaining these services at some cost to ourselves in view of the conditions under which

the employees of the British Council are forced to work?

Mr. Haire: Has my hon. Friend noted the recent decision of the Czechoslovak Government to close down the British Council and the British Information Service in Czechoslovakia, and will he say what His Majesty's Government contemplate doing in reply?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir, but if I reply I must give all the facts, and, therefore, I apologise for the length of the reply.
His Majesty's Government have received from the Czechoslovak Government, through His Majesty's Ambassador in Prague, a request to close down the offices of the British Council and British Information Service in Czechoslovakia on the ground that these bodies have taken part in espionage and subversive activities. The Czechoslovak Government have also stated that they no longer consider themselves bound by the Anglo-Czechoslovak Cultural Convention of 1947.
My right hon. Friend has today addressed a note to the Czechoslovak Ambassador in London in which he expresses the regret of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that the Czechoslovak Government should have sought by unilateral action to bring the Convention to an end, despite the fact that it was concluded for an initial period of five years.
This action, together with the baseless accusations directed against the personnel of the British Council and the British Information Service are, of course, a transparent pretext on the part of the Czechoslovak Government for carrying a stage further its aim of shutting off the Czechoslovak people from all knowledge of the free world and depriving them of their intellectual independence.
We cannot admit the validity of the Czechoslovak Government's attempt to bring the Convention to an end in this unilateral manner, but we naturally have no alternative but to comply with the request of the Czechoslovak Government that the offices of the British Council and the British Information Service be closed down. As a measure of retaliation we have required that the Czechoslovak Institute in London should be


closed down forthwith and that the Czechoslovak Embassy cease its information work.

Captain Crookshank: On a point of Order. Whereas the reply was most interesting, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a new practice that in reply to a supplementary question we should have an obviously prepared answer of about three pages long? Are we to understand that is to be the normal practice in future, because if so, it deprives hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper of the chance to reach them?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I did not know how long the answer was going to be. I was told that if that supplementary was asked, it would be answered at the same time. It was in Order, and therefore, why should I not call it as a supplementary? Of course, I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that one does not want to use up Question Time by long answers if it can be avoided.

Mr. Haire: Regarding that supplementary answer, will my hon. Friend say whether he contemplates taking any further steps, such as augmenting the B.B.C. Czechoslovak service, in order to take the place of the British Council?

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if you will advise us how we can arrange for our supplementary questions to receive these long replies?

Mr. Speaker: I do not mind telling the hon. Gentleman. The matter was put to me in this way—"Supposing No. 70 is not reached, may we have a Private Notice Question?" I thought that, if No. 70 was reached, we might have a supplementary question instead.

Mr. Donner: Is not the answer to the supplementary question an argument for closing down the British Council?

Captain Waterhouse: In future, Mr. Speaker, may we have supplementary questions by Private Notice?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. I take great care to avoid as many Private Notice Questions as possible. If they are short, I would rather have supplementary questions instead.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA (NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of reference of the British representatives who are engaged in discussions as to the method of payment by Albania of the damages awarded against her by the Hague Court; how many meetings have taken place with the Albanian representatives; and how long he now expects these discussions to take.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As I told the hon. Member for the Carlton Division of Notingham (Mr. Pickthorn) in reply to his supplementary question on 8th May, the terms of reference of the British representative are to establish the manner of payment of the claim awarded by the International Court. One meeting has so far been held. I am unable to predict how long the talks may last.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of the last part of the answer, can the hon. Gentleman say whether our representatives have been instructed to refuse to tolerate delay and obstruction?

Mr. Davies: As I have said, another meeting is being sought.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we be told what are the various manners of payment between which a choice is being made by these negotiators? May we be reassured that it is a question wholly of the manner of payment and not one of the substance or amount?

Mr. Davies: Discussions are concerned with the manner of payment, and the sum involved is a large sum for a small country such as Albania. Quite clearly, there has to be some arrangement for the way in which it shall be paid.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that Albania is not a free agent in this matter, does this little sum really affect Russia to any great extent?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAWLER "ETRURIA" (DETENTION)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a further statement on the circumstances in which the Grimsby trawler "Etruria" was boarded by a Soviet crew.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir. Until we have the trawler skipper's version of the incident, there is nothing I can add to my statements in the House on 5th and 10th May respectively. The House is no doubt aware that the trawler was released on 11th May.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman think these risks were justified when the trawler's catch from the voyage will be used for fishmeal?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULS-GENERAL (RESIDENCES)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of posts at which no private residence is available for His Majesty's Consuls-General and their families and in which countries they are; and in which towns senior consular officials are now obliged to live in hotels.

Mr. Ernest Davies: There are 39 Consulates-General which are not provided with official residences. I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report the names of the countries.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is very undesirable that His Majesty's Consuls-General and their families should, in 39 cases, be obliged to live in hotels and be without any private residence? What steps are the Government taking to provide private residences for these people?

Mr. Davies: It is our policy to provide official residences where possible, and steps are being taken to that end. In view of the dislocation at the end of the war and other considerations, it has not been possible to provide them all with residences.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Gentleman say in how many of the 39 cases the British Consul-General is the only one who has not got an official residence, whereas all the others have?

Mr. Davies: Not without notice.

Following are the countries: Argentine, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, France and French North Africa, Greece, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Saudi-Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United States of America, Yugoslavia.

The Consul-General makes his own arrangements for personal accommodation at these posts and receives a rent allowance to cover the cost. It is frequently necessary for a consular officer to live in an hotel on first arrival at a post, but at present the only senior consular officers who are living in hotels are the Consuls-General at Seville and Salonika.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (HIGH COMMISSIONER'S POWERS)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the termination of the International Refugee Organisation in 1951, His Majesty's Government have sent instructions or guidance to the United Kingdom Delegation at the United Nations organisation regarding their attitude towards the powers of the High Commissioner for Refugees, and the methods to be adopted for classification and grading of refugees.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would the hon. Gentleman inform the House what are the views of the Government on the scope and powers of the High Commissioner for Refugees, who will succeed the International Refugee Organisation?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question to that effect, I will endeavour to give him the answer.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can answer now the question concerning the instructions given to the United Kingdom delegation?

Mr. Davies: I have given the answer; it was "Yes, Sir." I may add that it is not customary to disclose the instructions sent to representatives of His Majesty's Government at international conferences.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC CORPS, LONDON

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange for the publication and sale of a monthly or quarterly list of the London diplomatic corps.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir.

Mr. Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a majority of the large and very many of the smaller capitals do provide a list of this kind, and, at a time when there is much public apprehension about the number of diplomats at certain Embassies, is it not desirable that we should have published an up-to-date list?

Mr. Davies: There is a list available, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. It is placed in the Library of the House, where any hon. Member who wishes may examine it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (SEIZED SHIPS)

Mr. Fernyhongh: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further information to give the House with regard to the merchant ships "Ethel Mollen" and the "Qui Chung Shan" seized some weeks ago by the Chinese Nationalists.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes, Sir. The "Ethel Moller" was recovered from the Chinese Nationalists on 12th May by H.M.S. "Cossack." She is now in Hong Kong. The "Taichungshan" was taken to Takao, Formosa, on 23rd April. His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Tamsur has been on board and reports that the Master and two British officers, while not allowed to leave their ship, are being correctly treated. His Majesty's Consul is continuing to press for the release of this ship.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR ATTACHE, CAIRO

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the duties and salary of the Labour Counsellor at Cairo.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The duties of Labour Attachés at His Majesty's Missions abroad were described in the reply given by my predecessor to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) on 7th July, 1947. I am sending a copy of that reply to the hon. Member. Mr. M. T. Audsley, the Labour Attaché on the staff of His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo, is also Labour Adviser to the British Middle East Office. In this capacity his services are available on

request to the Governments of all countries in the area covered by the British Middle East Office. His salary is £1,340 per annum, plus foreign allowances.

Mr. Erroll: At a time like this, is it really necessary for us to give free advice to Middle East countries on the organisation of trade unions?

Mr. Davies: Certainly. Our great endeavour is to improve the standard of living in the Middle East, and we think this is a contribution to that end.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND GERMANY (COAL AND STEEL PRODUCTION)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the implications of the French Government proposals to pool French and German steel and coal production; and at what time he was first informed of these proposals.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The text of the French proposals did not reach my right hon. Friend until the afternoon of 9th May, and he had no previous information on them. The implications of the French proposals are at present being studied in detail. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11th May.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind the fact that many of us are worried because the representation of the trade unions might not be strong enough on this organisation; and secondly, if the hypothesis is that the "cold" war is to continue, then this cartel merely means that coal and steel are to be the centre of power politics?

Mr. Ernest Davies: My hon. Friend is, I think, making certain assumptions which it is far too early to accept.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (ENTRY RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he proposes to make to the protest of the Peking Government against the restrictions on Chinese nationals entering and leaving Hong Kong; and whether he will


give an assurance that, in view of water and accommodation problems as well as the danger of Communist infiltration into the Colony, these restrictions will be continued.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The reply is at present under consideration. Control measures have been introduced because of the large influx into Hong Kong over the last few months which has led to serious overcrowding with its attendant health, fire and water shortage risks. I can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government have no intention of fettering the hands of the Government of Hong Kong on matters such as these which are of vital importance to the well being of the inhabitants of the Colony.

Mr. Donner: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask for an assurance that these restrictions will not be watered down in an effort to reach some sort of bargain with the Chinese Communist Government?

Mr. Davies: I will take notice of that.

WHITSUNTIDE RECESS

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): It may be convenient for me to inform the House that it is proposed to adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess on Friday, 26th May until Tuesday, 13th June.

Orders of the Day — DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(ACQUISITION OF LAND AND CREATION OF EASEMENTS.)

3.32 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): I beg to move in page 1, line 12, to leave out from 'that," to the end of line 12, page 2, and to insert:
(a) where at the time of the publication, in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act,. 1946, as hereinafter applied, of notice of the preparation in draft of a compulsory purchase order the industrial building to which the draft order relates is in occupation for a purpose involving the use thereof to a substantial extent for the carrying on of any industrial process or in connection with any such process for the time being carried on by the occupier of the building, the Board shall not have power to make the compulsory purchase order;
(b) where on an objection duly made under the said Act of 1946 as so applied any owner, lessee or occupier of the industrial building to which a draft compulsory purchase order relates represents that the building will be in such occupation as aforesaid within three months, the Board shall not make the compulsory purchase order (but without prejudice-to the holding of any proceedings between the preparation thereof in draft and the making of the order) until the expiration of three months from the making of the objection or such longer period as the Board may allow, and where such an objection is made the last foregoing paragraph shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to the time of publication of notice of a reference to the expiration of the said period of three months or the said longer period, as the case may be.
This Amendment arises from an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade during the Committee proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Alder-shot (Mr. Lyttelton) argued that in the original draft the Board of Trade was given far wider powers than were necessary. This Amendment is designed to meet his wishes and to give the courts jurisdiction. Assuming unwillingness on the part of an owner and insistence on the part of the Board of Trade to acquire premises, the procedure results in a deadlock. The owner, for example, says the premises are occupied to a substantial extent for carrying on an industrial process, or the owner says they will be so occupied within a short time. The Board


of Trade decides to go ahead with a compulsory purchase order, then the owner is served with a notice stating a time allowed for objections. Perhaps I ought to say what the procedure would be then. Objection having been made, the Board of Trade would order an inquiry. The objections raised at the inquiry and a full report of the inquiry are then submitted to the Minister. The Minister, then, if he thinks fit, can give the order his fullest blessing.
On the other hand, it may be contended that although the premises are not at present used, they will be in the near future. The Minister can then decide how long he thinks is reasonable to allow for that purpose. It will not be possible to make a compulsory purchase order until whatever time that has been allowed has elapsed. Once the order has been made the owner, if he still feels aggrieved, may apply to the High Court. He can apply under paragraph 15, Part IV of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. Let us assume he claims that on the relevant date the premises were in fact being occupied to a substantial extent for industrial purposes. If the court on such application then decides in favour of the owner's objection, the order will be set aside or modified by the court and the Board of Trade have to agree. I think the right hon. Member for Alder-shot will agree that the Amendment goes all the way to meet his wishes—at least I hope it does.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I should like to thank the Government for having met the point we raised on this matter. I think they have fully met it. Under (a), as I understand it, if a mistake should be made then the aggrieved party would have recourse to the courts. A mistake is very unlikely, as this is a definite matter of fact. If any mistake should arise it might arise in connection with the words in the Clause:
Or in connection with any such process for the time being carried on …
I see some possibility of dispute about that. It only remains to thank the Government for having met our point of view. I think the Amendment is a definite improvement to the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure my right hon.

Friend is right in saying that the main point put by the Opposition on Committee Stage has been met by this Amendment. I want to suggest, however, that a further small improvement is possible and to offer it for the consideration of the Government between now and a later stage of this Bill in another place.
The main part of the subsection refers to land including industrial buildings so that the acquisition need not be only of a building. It may include with that building a considerable amount of surrounding land. It is not restricted to the curtilage of the building. The proviso, both in its original and in its amended form, relates only to the building. I suggest it would be neater, and also desirable for a very good practical reason, that the proviso should also refer to the land including the building and not merely to the building.
It is, for example, possible, that there might be a case where the Board proposes to acquire with an industrial building a considerable area of surrounding land, which was in use for or in connection with industrial processes, for example, for storage. It might also be that that land or part of it was intended to be used in the following months by an adjacent factory for the purposes of the process they were carrying on. I am sure that in these circumstances the Board of Trade would not wish to acquire the land. Therefore, as the main part of the subsection refers to land including buildings, the security which is given by this proviso should extend not merely to the buildings but also to any land acquired with them. I hope the Government will consider that small point of drafting, which is also a point of substance, on a later stage of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(FURTHER PROVISION FOR GRANTS AND LOANS.)

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(3) The Board of Trade shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination, on or before the thirtieth day of September in every year, showing the payments in respect of grants and loans made under this section and the receipts by way of interest on and repayments of principal of such loans in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and


Auditor-General shall certify and report upon the same, and such account and report shall be laid before Parliament on or before the thirty-first day of January in the following year if Parliament is then sitting, and if Parliament is not then sitting then within one week after Parliament is next assembled.
I understand I am in order in moving this Amendment although my name is not on the Paper. I should like to apologise on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), whose name is on the Paper, because he cannot be here.
The object my hon. and learned Friend had in mind is one which should commend itself to hon. Members in all parts of the House. It is that we should be given an opportunity of seeing quite clearly how the progress of expenditure under this Bill is proceeding. I think we should all admit that it is quite easy to make mistakes in these matters, and they will be less frequent if the House of Commons is given a full opportunity of reviewing the past actions of the Government. It is quite easy, for example, to get industries in development areas which are not exactly suitable to the skill or the nature of the industrial population, and mistakes are bound to arise.
The object of my hon. and learned Friend in putting down the Amendment is to have a procedure by which this piece of expenditure is segregated from others, and which will give an opportunity to the House to review the whole position. I have had an opportunity of speaking to my hon. and learned Friend upon this Amendment. In putting it down, he is not entirely or obstinately wedded to this particular procedure, and if the Government prefer some other more usual administrative procedure which will have the same result, we on this side of the House would not press the Amendment. I believe, however, that the object which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind will commend itself no less to hon. Members opposite and to the Government than it does to hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Erroll: During the earlier stage of the Bill we saw that expenditure of this character could not be entirely scrutinised by purely commercial and economic standards. We

all agree that such expenditure is necessary and we hope, therefore, that there will be an opportunity of scrutinising the way in which it is incurred. Probably the best method of doing it is the method suggested in this Amendment.

Mr. Bottomley: We agree with the object of this Amendment. Indeed, in Committee my proposal was to go as far as practicable in giving details of expenditure. The hon. and learned Member whose name appears against the Amendment on the Order Paper said that the House should be informed of the manner in which the expenditure was
divided between the specific purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1655.]
I said that the estimates would show as far as possible the amounts required for different items of expenditure. Consequently the apropriation account should similarly show the expenditure "divided between the specific purposes." Therefore, I think the Amendment is unnecessary.
Under the existing appropriation account procedure provision as required is made. The Board of Trade is required by statute to prepare and submit to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination on 30th November in each year accounts of expenditure in the previous financial year. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has to certify and report on these appropriation accounts. Therefore, the requirements of this Amendment are met, and the public and the House itself will be kept informed of the expenditure on these schemes. I hope in these circumstances that it will not be necessary for the Amendment to be pressed.

Mr. Lyttelton: If I may have leave to speak again, I think that was a reasonably sympathetic answer. If, however, the Government should fall short of their assurance I should feel myself very much aggrieved in this matter and I should raise my voice in no uncertain manner. In the circumstances, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS [28th April]

Resolution reported:

MERCHANT SHIPPING (PAYMENT OF FEES INTO THE EXCHEQUER)

"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for regulating crew accommodation in fishing boats and for amending the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1949, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any fees received by the Minister of Transport under or by virtue of the said Act or any regulations made there-under."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. MATHERS in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CREW ACCOMMODATION IN FISHING BOATS.)

3.46 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any regulations made in respect of paragraph (b) of this subsection shall have regard to existing general traditions of design.
This Amendment arises from a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) during the Second Reading proceedings. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Bill as it stands allows for regulations to be made which will regulate the position in any fishing boat in which the crew accommodation or any part of it may be located and the standards to be observed in the construction, equipment and furnishing of such accommodation. According to my hon. Friend, and I think it will be generally agreed by the Committee, the traditional position for the accommodation of crews of fishing vessels is aft and not for'ard. My hon. Friend was most anxious that that traditional position should be maintained. In his speech he pointed out that in new foreign trawlers very good accommodation was to be found for'ard, but he did not think that that would meet with the desires of our own fishermen. Therefore he suggested that an Amendment of this kind would be acceptable to the fishing community generally.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While we do not wish to be either factious or fractious, I think it is a pity that the Minister should not be here to reply. I understand from certain sotto voce remarks which, although not entirely inaudible, are certainly very useful on occasion, that the Minister will be here before very long. Although I would not wish to move the Adjournment of the Committee in order that he might be here, I trust that his arrival will not be unduly delayed. The case which has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend requires answering, and I should have thought that the Minister, even from the courtesy point of view, would have been here to give the Committee the information required. It is a little awkward when business passes through very suddenly, as has been the case today, but for all that I think the Committee is entitled to make a slight protest when the Minister is not in his place to deal with business which, after all, he and the Government have set down to be taken at this time and in this place. Perhaps one of the other Ministers could give us an explanation of what is going on and tell us how long it will be before the Minister is able to appear.

Mr. Hoy: I think I should say a word or two in reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He knows that even in the best ordered House—whether we are sitting as a Committee or as a House—a slip very frequently takes place. As I heard the hon. and gallant Minister for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) move his Amendment, I thought he made a very reasonable case, but frankly I admit that I would not care to say whether or not I support it. I should prefer to wait until the Minister replies. When he has replied, I am sure that all hon. Members will be able to make up their minds on this Amendment.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): First of all I should like to offer my apologies to the Committee. The first Measure dealt with today went through with unexpected speed. I thought I could transact other business before we reached this Measure. Moreover, I must confess that I am not built for speed these days.
I want to assure the Committee at once, with very little qualification, that I recognise the importance of this Amendment.


It is quite out of the question that, in dealing with future improvements of fishing vessels, we should ignore present circumstances. To do so has never been the policy of the Ministry of Transport. I will give a general assurance that I shall take the purpose of this Amendment into full account, but I would point out that it is framed in rather vague language and that it is difficult to define the exact responsibility of the Minister in this respect. It merely states:
shall have regard to existing general traditions of design.
That is the common practice in matters of this description.
Probably the most important criticism of this Amendment, however, is that there is no similar provision in the Act of 1948, which was passed about 15 or 18 months ago when I was dealing with the international convention on merchant ships. This Bill is modelled on the provisions of the 1948 Act and I see no reason why we should adopt a practice in regard to fishing vessels different from that which we adopted on the former occasion. I would remind hon. Members opposite that the 1948 Act was passed with the general agreement of both sides, both in this House and in another place.
I hope that my assurance that I shall take this question into consideration will be sufficient, but to strengthen my request and appeal to the Opposition further, I shall make it plain that in framing these regulations I shall have to consult representative bodies of owners and seafarers. I would not desire that that consultation should be looked upon as a pious hope. I have before me the list of the bodies which I have to consult, because I wanted to give as firm an assurance as possible on this matter. Those bodies are very numerous and very representative.
Indeed, I was surprised at the obligations which I have accepted in this respect because, in the main, these bodies do not represent national organisation. This industry appears to be split up amongst a number of bodies and ports. Certainly the result will be to make any form of consultation as representative as possible. There are 16 organisations altogether. If hon. Members wish to be satisfied about the representative character of these bodies, I am prepared to give the list in detail, but I assure the Committee that it covers the whole of the country and

most of the main fishing ports in Britain. I trust that, following these general assurances, it will not be felt necessary to press the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated that the point we made to him is one of substance. In view of the very wide and at the same time specific undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Committee I shall, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gerald Williams: A rather important question arises on Clause 1. During the Second Reading Debate, I asked the Minister whether foreigners would have to comply with the rules and regulations which will be laid down and which are covered by Clause 1. On that occasion he did not answer, and I ask him to make the position of foreigners quite clear now. As far as I can see there is nothing about foreigners in the Act, although there is some reference to foreigners in the Schedule at page 9, paragraph 12. I am not clear in my own mind whether foreigners will be forced to comply with these regulations.
If they are not compelled to do so, then it will be extremely unfair to our own fishermen who are having a very bad time at the moment. I know we cannot compel foreigners to bring their ships up to the standards we require but we could control them to some extent. For example, we could prevent them from landing fish in our ports unless they were prepared to bring their ships up to the standards with which our own fishermen have to comply. There was an international convention on over-fishing and all nations agreed that they should do something about it, but the convention has not been ratified so far by several nations and those nations are still landing fish in this country. We do not want the same thing to happen here.
4.0 p.m.
Since the Second Reading of this Bill the situation in the fish industry has become even more serious and some trawlers are being laid up simply because fishing does not pay. If we are to help our fishermen we must help them soon.


My suggestion is that, to protect our own gallant fishermen, who, during and since the war, have done a very great job of work, and to allow them to earn an honest living bringing fish to this country, we should not lay down standards for them to maintain without taking some steps to see that foreigners also maintain those same high standards.

Mr. Keenan: I am rather surprised at the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams). He suggested that we should not improve or attempt to improve the accommodation and general conditions in our ships, as provided by the Bill, because it has not been done in foreign vessels. In merchant shipping generally our standards have been below those of other countries, though we have improved them recently. It seems to me that what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that we should be cautious lest the trawler owners should provide something foreigners do not.

Mr. Williams: No. Perhaps I did not make it quite clear. I want to stop the foreigners bringing fish to this country unless they comply with the standards laid down for our people. I think it is desirable that we should have high standards for our fishermen, but we do not want foreigners to compete on unfair terms.

The Chairman (Major Milner): I understand the hon. Gentleman is arguing against the Clause on the ground that it is undesirable to lay down standards, as permitted by the Clause, unless some corresponding arrangements are made by foreign countries.

Mr. Williams: I was asking whether they would have to.

The Chairman: To that extent, perhaps, the matter may be in Order, but it would not be in Order to go further than that.

Mr. Barnes: I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with this point, because we appreciate that it is a matter of general concern. We, of course, naturally desire—indeed, I think it has always been the historical position of this country to do so—to give a lead in all maritime standards, but I also recognise the very practical consideration

that must always be borne in mind, that we must not take those standards too far ahead, to the extent that they may, in fact, damage the situation of either our Merchant Fleet or, as in this case, our fishing vessels.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) that this Bill—and I state this quite specifically—does not and cannot deal with the standards of foreign-owned fishing vessels. This Clause deals with the responsibility which we have for the conditions of seafarers in our own fishing vessels. There are two sides to this. Obviously, if we claimed the right to impose conditions on foreign-owned fishing vessels, equally other countries could claim the right to impose conditions on our fishing vessels, and the same would be true in the case of the merchant fleets of other countries and the merchant ships belonging to this country. I am not so sure that on balance we should not get the worst of that situation. I do not mean that our standards would invoke reprisals; but the ingenuity that can sometimes be exercised in matters of this description to cause inconvenience at times could be pretty severe.
Therefore, I think that if the hon. Gentleman reflects on the situation, and bears in mind that these powers will be applied only to new ships, and to ships that are coming for substantial alterations and repairs; that the Ministry of Transport always keeps in the closest possible touch with the owners' and the officers' and men's organisations in these shipping matters; and that we always have a very practical eye on this problem, and on the standards of British ships as compared with those of our foreign competitors, I think he will be able to rest, assured that we shall not overlook the point he has raised.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the grudging welcome that has been given to this Clause by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) I should like to say a word upon it, although I had not intended to do so. Whatever may be the conditions in foreign trawlers, I think it is right that we should do what we can to make the accommodation for the seamen in our own trawlers of as high a standard as possible. That is, apparently, what this Clause is intended to do, and I welcome it for that reason. Of course, we have no


jurisdiction over foreign trawlers. We cannot do anything about them. They are not within our scope. However, what we can do is being done by this Clause to improve the accommodation for seamen in our own trawlers, and for that reason I welcome it.

Commander Galbraith: I am quite certain that the Committee and the fishing industry will welcome the speech which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) has made. He was not in any way giving a grudging welcome to the Clause. What he was doing was calling attention to a matter which the right hon. Gentleman himself has agreed needs to be kept constantly in mind—that there should be no unfair competition coming from foreign sources. That is the point we have in mind at this moment. We can remember many examples, in merchant shipping, of most unfair competition in days gone by. My hon. Friend merely wanted to draw attention to that fact. The right hon. Gentleman has assured us—he has told us this cuts both ways—that he will keep the matter constantly in mind, and that therefore, we need not fear that the fishing industry will be in any way let down during his term in his high office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 376 OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.)

Section three hundred and seventy-six of the principal Act shall have effect as if in paragraph (d) of subsection one for the words "four weeks" there were substituted the words "one month."—[Mr. Nield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Basil Nield: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee may recall—such hon. Members as were present then—that in our discussion on Second Reading I raised a matter which, I hope, the Committee will regard as of some importance in relation to a proposed amendment of Section 376 of the principal Act, the Act of 1894. That Section deals with the penalties which may be imposed by the courts of summary jurisdiction for offences against discipline. The offence of wilful

disobedience, which is the most common in the fishing vessels, is punishable by either four weeks imprisonment or a fine of 20s., and the courts have been in a considerable difficulty in dealing with this matter because of the very small fine which alone may be imposed. These men are earning considerable wages—up to about £15 a week, I think—and the courts have found, especially in the case of second convictions, that while they are very unwilling to send these men to prison, a fine of 20s. is really inadequate. I hope the Committee will agree to an alteration, so that instead of the alternative of a fine of 20s. there should be a penalty of a £5 fine. It seems a modest Amendment.
There have been available for one of the fishing ports some figures which have shown that there has been a considerable increase in the number of prison sentences on fishermen who have been wilfully disobedient, and we want to avoid that if possible. The reason, I think, has been that justices have felt that to fine a man 20s. once, twice or three times really does not meet the case. The matter is somewhat technical, but the Committee may accept—and I hope I am right—that by amending this Section of the principal Act so that the words "four weeks" are omitted and the words "one month" substituted there will be available, by reason of the operation of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, an alternative fine of £5.

Mr. Barnes: I noted the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) on Second Reading, and it appeared to me that he touched on a fairly serious matter. I therefore had this examined to ascertain whether it was possible to meet his point in this Bill. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that I am not able to enter on an argument with him, with his legal knowledge, on the advisability or otherwise of changing the severity of these sentences in order to deal with the problem which the courts have to face from time to time. For the moment I am not looking at it from the point of view of whether or not the proposal is justified on experience.
The difficulty I had to face was that with the proposed alteration, we would get into a real difficulty if we attempted in this Bill to alter the law, because it would


be a different provision from that which obtains in the 1894 Act, and as applied to merchant shipping generally. I am therefore very reluctant to agree, on this Bill, to make any alteration of the law which would impose a more severe penalty on fishermen than has been the case hitherto. I have secured a very large measure of agreement amongst all the sections of the industry in support of this Bill, and I am very reluctant to offset that agreement by amending the law dealing with penalties.
If there is a case as put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think it ought to be dealt with in a different form and on a different occasion and not on a Bill of this description. I therefore ask him, whatever he consider to be the value of his case, not to press this new Clause, because I am afraid it would lead to difficulties which I could not overcome. In any case, these provisions have existed for an exceedingly long time; this Bill merely extends provisions that we passed in 1948 for merchant ships; we did not deal with this point on that occasion, and I therefore should not like to deal with it today. I hope that the new Clause will not be pressed.

4.15 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman feels as he does about this. It seemed to me that part of his observations were somewhat irrelevant to the question we are considering. For instance, he referred to the long period during which the 1894 Act and the particular provision to which we refer in this new Clause have been in operation. Of course, it is only in recent years that the situation has changed. In the old days, to impose a fine such as is allowed under the present law was a very severe penalty to inflict upon a seaman, because in those days his wages were not very great. Today, with the altered value of money and the consequent increase in wages, the situation is quite different, and I do not think there would be any grievance or ill-feeling if the Minister were to do what he is invited to do in this new Clause.
I say that because on Second Reading my hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the fact that the owners and unions had agreed, in certain cases at least, to set up their own organisation to deal with this matter. If that is the case—there

has been no attempt to contradict it, and I am sure my hon. and learned Friend would never have put it forward had it not been the case—then it is surely right that the law should not remain as it is, but that some alteration should be made in it.
My hon. and learned Friend's wish and intention is to protect the men. At present there is an inclination to impose very heavy penalties on them, and my hon. and learned Friend wants to guard against that and to see that they are treated reasonably. It does seem that to alter the words from "four weeks" to "one month" so that the maximum fine is increased from £1 to £5 is a very simple way of protecting the men against perhaps harsh treatment in the courts. In 1949 there were 132 convictions with 20 sentences of imprisonment. My hon. and learned Friend's contention is that had the law been as he desires to make it, instead of sentences of imprisonment being imposed, there would have been fines of £5, that being considered quite adequate for the offence committed.
I would remind the Committee that the offence involved is that men absent themselves just as the vessel is about to sail so that the ship is held up; she does not go to sea and the men are prosecuted. At present, when they are so prosecuted, all the court can do is either to impose a fine of 20s. or to send them to prison. That is what we wish to guard against. I hope the Minister has looked into the matter seriously, because from what he told us a moment ago it would not seem that he has done so.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, I have. I understand that if I accepted this new Clause there would be different penalties imposed upon fishermen from those now imposed on seamen of merchant ships. That is the situation I wish to avoid on a Bill such as this.

Commander Galbraith: I gather the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there would be a different penalty imposed upon fishermen as compared with those who go to sea in foreign going vessels, or even in coastwise shipping.

Mr. Barnes: Yes.

Commander Galbraith: Well, I do not know the rights and wrongs of that. I


presume the right hon. Gentleman has taken advice before making that statement

Mr. Barnes: This brings out the difficulty I am in. However, if it would satisfy the Committee for the time being, I am prepared to look at this more closely before the Bill goes to another place. When I was faced with the difficulty, I did not feel that I could accept this new Clause. I am, of course, always anxious to examine any proposal, but I did not quite see how this proposal could be applied to this Bill.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman is always very fair in these matters. I should have thought that if we altered a Section of the Merchant Shipping Act it would apply equally to all seafarers. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to think so. However, in view of the Minister's undertaking to look at this matter again before the Bill goes to another place I am satisfied, because I know that he will look into it and consider it seriously. May I say once more that my hon. and learned Friend's only object is to protect members of the fishing community from having more or less savage penalties inflicted on them when a much lesser penalty would fit the offence. That is our reason, but in the circumstances I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he might see his way to withdraw the Clause in view of the Minister's answer.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am glad that the Minister has taken the line that he has taken on this new Clause, which would not fit into this Bill. This is a Bill dealing with a specific subject, namely, the fishing industry. It does not deal with merchant shipping as a whole. The new Clause is designed to amend a Section of the Merchant Shipping Act which is not strictly relevant to this little Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Minister before he gives serious consideration to the arguments that have been adduced by the Opposition, will take into consultation the persons who are interested in this industry with a view to seeing whether this is a proper amendment.
It is a technical matter; it will have to fit into the Whole merchant shipping code, and the new Clause is designed in a piece-meal and haphazard way to

amend a Section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in a way which does not appear to me to be appropriate in the present circumstances. It is sought to change the period of four weeks into one month, which seems a small and almost trivial alteration, but I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the Section referred to, namely, Section 376 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the period used is four weeks all the way through. That is a long Section, with many subsections, and in every case where a period of time is referred to, it is weeks and not one month. It would be very inappropriate to put into one subsection a period of one month and leave four weeks in the others. The new Clause is quite inappropriate, I suggest, to the aim which the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) has in view.

Mr. Nield: I am persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman to take a certain course in this case, but if there is an argument which would indicate that I should do the opposite, it is that of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). Apparently he does not appreciate the point of what I have been saying to the Committee. This is a matter upon which legal Members may disagree, but the hon. and learned Gentleman should understand that when Section 376 of this Act is read in conjunction with the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, it means not a difference as between four weeks and one month but that if one month is inserted the alternative fine may be £5 instead of 20s. That is the whole purpose of this proposed new Clause.
I disagree profoundly with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about this being an unsuitable time or Bill in which to make this amendment. The Bill, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, is
to amend in a number of respects the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1949.
That is exactly what I am seeking to do. We are in this Measure, seeking to provide certain new arrangements, particularly in the fishing industry. One of the difficulties which is felt in that industry by both sides—the unions and fishermen and the owners—is the difficulty in cases of wilful disobedience of having a penalty


which is appropriate to the case. That is all I am seeking to do. It is sound opinion, in my submission, which I am advancing.
There is one other point which I should like to make. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has pointed out that the chief offence is that of a man failing to appear when the ship sails, with great damage to the man's fellow fishermen, the owners and everyone else. The other principal offence is to refuse to work at sea, when a man may have to be put ashore and possibly repatriated at great inconvenience and trouble to everyone. It is ridiculous to suggest that on the second conviction a 20s. fine is appropriate.
The Minister has pointed to a difficulty which I fully appreciate. If I am here proposing a different penalty for one section of the industry, that may create a difficulty, but I would point out that Section 376 contains a great number of offences. It is wilful disobedience to which I am referring, and that is the Section under which these two common offences are usually brought, and why I focus attention on this particular Section. However, in the circumstances, as my hon. and gallant Friend has stated, the Minister is always receptive in these matters, and I think that he, at any rate, appreciates the point, which the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, apparently does not.
This is a matter of substance, a matter of importance to the industry as a whole and in the interests of the fishermen particularly. I hope that the Minister will look at it again and be ready to put into effect the purpose of this new Clause, and that by the time the Bill goes to another place some proposal may be made. I am obliged to him for his undertaking, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule.—(PROVISIONS OF MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1948, APPLIED WITH MODIFICATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION ONE OF THIS ACT.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 7, line 45, after "satisfied," to insert:
after consultation with the owner of the fishing boat or an organisation or organisations

appearing to the Minister to be representative of owners of British fishing boats, and with an organisation or organisations appearing to the Minister to be representative of seamen employed in British fishing boats.
During the Second Reading Debate fears were expressed that an owner might be unwilling to accept the provisions of the Bill where a ship is liable for considerable reconstruction or repairs to which the provisions of the Bill would apply. In my desire to meet that situation, this Amendment has been designed. It provides particularly that not only shall there be consultation with the organisations, which is an undertaking which runs right through the Bill, but also for consultation with the owner of the vessel as well. The Amendment will, I think, meet the view expressed when the Bill was read a Second time.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, at the end, to insert:
being a complaint which in the opinion of the surveyor is reasonable.
I suggest this may be considered with the Amendment in page 9, line 12, at end, insert:
Provided that where an inspection is carried out as a result of a complaint made in accordance with paragraph 5 of this Schedule, no owner of a fishing boat shall be liable for any sum of money as contribution to such fees if in the opinion of the surveyor the complaint is frivolous or otherwise unjustifiable.
We are dealing with the inspection of crew accommodation made under certain circumstances. To the words:
whenever a complaint in respect of crew accommodation in any such fishing vessel is duly made in accordance with the regulations"—
we wish to add the words:
being a complaint which in the opinion of the surveyor is reasonable 
the surveyor shall inspect the crew accommodation. We have put that in because we consider it necessary, in regard to the First Schedule, page 9, at line 12, to insert the second Amendment. These Amendments provide that where a demand is made for inspection, the inspection shall be made only where the surveyor considers it is reasonable to make it, but that if the complaint in the opinion of the surveyor is frivolous or otherwise unjustified, the fee shall not be payable.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. G. Williams: I should like to add a few words in support of these Amendments, it is very easy for someone who has a grumble or "grouse" to demand that an inspection shall be made. It is laid down that if an inspecton is made, a fee is payable, but it does not say who shall pay the fee, although I presume it is to be the owner. It seems very unfair that the owner shall have to pay simply because some frivolous request has been made for an inspection. It will give some protection if the Minister will accept these Amendments.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist both of these Amendments. I submit that the provision is quite sufficient as it stands, and that the first Amendment is unnecessary. In my submission, the surveyor should inspect accommodation whenever a complaint is made in accordance with the regulations. The words proposed would involve something that would be very inconvenient and unnecessary. They would involve a preliminary inquiry as to whether the complaint was reasonable. How is that to be determined? Obviously, it can only be determined by inspecting the accommodation. If the accommodation is to be inspected so as to determine whether the complaint is reasonable, the accommodation might just as well be inspected for the purposes of the complaint. These Amendments would cause additional expense, trouble and delay, and would go a long way towards stultifying the very reasonable procedure adumbrated by the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Nield: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) seems to be contending that note should be taken of complaints of a frivolous or unjustifiable character. I should have thought the Committee would take the opposite view. If the inspector is to make up his mind, he must be in a position to turn down frivolous complaints. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) has pointed out, we all know that from time to time grumbles are made which have no real substance in them. The inspector should have the right to say whether a complaint is frivolous or not, and to disallow it if it is not a reasonable complaint.

Mr. Hector Hughes: How can that be determined without first inspecting the subject matter of the complaint?

Mr. Keenan: It appears to me that these Amendments will prevent reasonable inspection and attention to complaints. What redress have the crew if they cannot make complaints when their accommodation is not being kept up to standard? The Schedule appears to me to provide satisfactorily for such complaints to be made. By adding these words the additional cost will presumably fall on the individual who makes the complaint. I suggest that crews in these vessels in many cases have complaints to make which are more than justifiable. Until we have arrived at a time when the standard of accommodation is such that no grumbles or complaints need be made, it is deplorable to alter the Bill in such a way that it goes against the interests of the crews.

Mr. Barnes: I do not think that there is any need for disputation on this matter, because I hope to be able to meet the views of both sides of the Committee. I am unable to accept this Amendment, because it is most essential there should be complete confidence in the Ministry of Transport Surveyors. If we begin to allow them to pick and chose complaints, we may undermine their position. It is desirable that whenever a complaint is made, it should be examined impartially by the surveyors.
The case put forward is a perfectly fair one, and I do not think any of my hon. Friends will disagree with it, namely, the position in regard to malicious or frivolous complains. We all know that sometimes we get these complaints put forward for a variety of motives. No one would wish to impose on the owner if, in the opinion of the surveyor, a frivolous, unreasonable or malicious complaint has been made. Obviously, the owner should not be asked to pay the cost of the fees in these circumstances. I propose to meet this situation in the regulations rather than to provide for it in the Bill. I think this is the more practical way of doing it. In these circumstances, I hope that both sides of the Committee will be in agreement and we can proceed with the Bill.

Commander Galbraith: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in


saying that the surveyors must be above any criticism. I should not like them to be put in a position where they can be criticised for having taken one side or the other. I agree that they should be protected from that, and from that point of view the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to accept the first Amendment may have considerable weight behind it. I understand from his further observations that he is going to put something in the regulations to meet the second Amendment.

Mr. Barnes: When the regulations are being framed a full discussion will take place between the representatives of the industry, and this problem will be met in a practical way.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he appreciates the point and does not wish the owners to be unjustly treated. He has, therefore, met our point by saying that he will deal with the problem when the regulations are made. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Nield: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, at the end, to insert:
8. Where the owner of any fishing boat in respect of which a certificate has been given to the registrar under the preceding paragraph contends that that fishing boat complies with the regulations an appeal shall lie to a Court of Survey under section four hundred and eighty-seven of the principal Act.
The purpose of this Amendment is to seek the views of the Committee as to the propriety of making the surveyor's decision on the state of accommodation subject to appeal to a tribunal. The Committee will appreciate that the preceding paragraphs of this Schedule provide, where a complaint in respect of accommodation is made, the surveyor of ships will inspect that accommodation, and if he finds that it does not conform to the regulations and is not up to certificate standard, the certificate shall be so worded as to deal with that failure to come up to the regulations.
The effects of an adverse report may be extremely serious if the vessel is to be out of commission. Those wholly employed in her will be out of work, and the business of the ship will be brought to a standstill. So serious may be the results of that surveyor's decision that the matter

should be made subject to an appeal, in order that another tribunal might consider the matter afresh and decide upon it. In this respect what we have in mind is that the existing machinery provided under Section 487 of the principal Act should be adopted to cover the situation.
As the Committee may recall, that Section states that a court of survey should consist of a judge and two assessors, the judge to be drawn from a list prescribed by the Secretary of State, including stipendiary magistrates, county court judges and other persons specially fitted for the task, and two technical advisers. In those circumstances I ask the Committee to consider, having regard to the very serious result of an adverse finding, whether it would not be proper that the decision of the surveyor should be subject to appeal.

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid this Amendment exaggerates the matters with which we are dealing in this part of the Schedule. As the hon. and learned Member said, the court of survey consists of a judge and two assessors, and it would exaggerate the procedure to apply matters of this character to it, because we are dealing here with crew accommodation on fishing vessels, and any alteration that may be required when the ship is undergoing substantial repair. Furthermore, that can only apply to existing ships when they come in for substantial alterations and repairs.
As I have already indicated, consultations will take place with the owners on matters of that kind. I am informed that the general round of matters to be dealt with are quite outside the kind of problem that was envisaged when the court of survey was established. It is many years, probably some 20 or 30, since the procedure of the court of survey has been invoked, generally because of the good understanding and the practical arrangement between the industry and the Ministry of Transport Surveyors.
If I give one or two instances of the type of problem which is involved here, the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that it is undesirable in this case to resurrect the court of survey, because that is what it would come to. The question in dispute may be a matter of additional natural lighting, ventilation, better sanitary provisions, better floor covering or improved sleeping accommodation. The


experience of the Ministry is that the court of survey is not invoked today and has almost fallen into disuse. It appears to me quite out of proportion to bring in a matter of this kind, and I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment. I hope it will not be pressed.

4.45 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: In putting forward this Amendment my hon. and learned Friend had in mind the possibility of a ship being out of commission for a considerable period. But the right hon. Gentleman tells us that these alterations will only take place when a ship is under repair and, therefore, the apprehensions and anxieties which my hon. and learned Friend have were not really justified. In view of these circumstances, and of the statement of the Minister it would seem that the Amendment was not really necessary, and I have no doubt my hon. and learned Friend will not press it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I hope the Minister will continue to resist this attempt to have this appeal. The matters to be decided by the surveyor are obviously matters of fact, which can be decided in the main by ocular demonstration of an exhibition on a particular ship about which there has been a complaint. It would be very unsuitable to have an appeal from the surveyor to determine facts of that kind, and it would be equally unsuitable to have an appeal to a tribunal of an entirely different kind. High Court judges who never saw the actual locus in quo and never visited the ship, would not be in as good a position to determine a question of fact as the surveyor who sees the place and knows the special matter of the complaint. I hope the Minister will take those aspects of the matter into account and will resist the attempt to set up a court of appeal on the lines suggested here. We must add too, the fact, that the appeal would increase the expense, the trouble and the delay in the use of the particular ship.

Mr. Nield: As I said in moving my Amendment, I desired the views of the Committee on the subject, and having heard them and particularly the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think I ought to proceed with it. I am quite satisfied with the reasons he has advanced. Nevertheless I trust

it was worth while canvassing the matter. Because of the Minister's assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I should like to express my satisfaction that this Measure has received support from all quarters of the House. This is the third Merchant Shipping Bill that has had that very happy fate. It demonstrates very clearly to all the people in the Merchant Service that we are trying to discharge our obligations to them in view of their conduct both in war and in peace.

Commander Galbraith: On the Second Reading we gave a general welcome to the Bill. We now send it on its way with our very best wishes for a speedy passage to the Statute Book.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to midwives (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under section fifty-three of the National Health Service Act, 1946, or section fifty-three of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, being an increase attributable to—

(i) expenditure incurred under the new Act by local supervising authorities in providing, improving or furnishing residential accommodation for women undergoing courses of training with a view to obtaining certificates under the Midwives Act, 1902, or the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915, or in acquiring land for the purpose of the provision for such accommodation; or
(ii) any provision of the new Act empowering the Central Midwives Board and the Central Midwives Board for Scotland to pay to their members sums in respect


of losses or expenses suffered or incurred by them for the purpose of enabling them to perform duties as members of those Boards; and

(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of the new Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part I or II of the Local Government Act, 1948."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER OF MINISTERS TO REVISE CONSTITUTIONS OF CENTRAL MIDWIVES BOARD AND CENTRAL MIDWIVES BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.)

4.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(2) An order under the foregoing subsection may provide for any incidental or supplementary matters for which it appears to the Minister requisite or expedient for the purposes of the order to provide and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, may (so far as provision in that behalf appears to the Minister to be requisite or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to the order) provide that the power of the Central Midwives Board under section three of the Midwives Act, 1902, to frame rules shall include power to frame rules with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the original wording in the Clause should not be unnecessarily restricted. It might be that the Minister, after discussion with the Central Mid-wives Board and other interested bodies, would desire to put before the House an Order requiring steps to be taken, for example, in connection with elections to be carried out to the Central Midwives Board. I am not saying that this is likely to happen, but it is possible that at some time in the future it might be considered. Accordingly, we have been advised that if the Minister wished to do that he probably could not do so, because it could not be done under the wording of the Bill as it stands.
Further, if it were desired at any time to secure elections to the Central Mid-wives Board, it would be necessary for

the Board to be empowered to make the necessary rules to carry out the Order. For these reasons we have felt it necessary to have the rather wider powers that are included under the Amendment and I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to give their support to the Amendment.

The Chairman: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the two Amendments following on the Order Paper, in page 2, line 4, after "Scotland," to insert:
with the substitution, for the reference to section three of the Midwives Act, 1902, of a reference to section five of the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915,
and in page 2, line 6, to leave out "Mid-wives (Scotland) Act," and to insert "said Act of."

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, Major Milner, they are consequential.

Sir Herbert Williams: I am not quite clear what the proposed Amendment really does. I have spent a little time in the Library studying the Act of 1902 and I find that under that Act the Central Midwives Board had a specific constitution. It was made clear who was on it—so many doctors elected in certain ways, so many nurses, so many representatives of obstetric institutions, so many representatives of county councils, and so on. All the appropriate people appeared to be represented. Under the Clause to which the proposed Amendment relates, all that is thrown overboard. Nobody knows what the constitution of the Central Midwives Board is to be in future, until the Minister has made up and revealed his mind. Then he can change his mind as often as he likes. The whole thing is rather totalitarian in this aspect, and it surprises me, having regard to the stable out of which it has come.
The Act of 1902 sets out in Section 3 who are to be the members of the Board. Then, in the next Section, it states the power of the Board to frame rules as to who are to conduct their business. The rules that we are authorising today do not seem to have anything to do with the method of appointment of the Board, as I understand them. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he wanted the Amendment so that if it were decided to have elections, the Board could draw


up the rules, but the rules which the Board had the power to make were not those to regulate the procedure by which they were appointed. That matter comes into an earlier part of the Act of 1902.
Therefore, I do not quite see what relationship there was between the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Amendment. I read this Amendment over the week-end and I was rather surprised. I tried for a time to turn the many words in it into fewer words, but I did not quite succeed because I had not in front of me the Act of 1902. When I read the Amendment in conjunction with the Act, I got some sort of idea what the Amendment was supposed to do. It does not appear to be intended to do what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I hope that he will try to clear up my mind and his own, and the minds of the rest of the Committee on this point, before we pass to the next Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think it is obvious that the doubts which arise in the mind of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) do not arise in the minds of others. The Amendment is purely for the kind of purpose which I have already explained. It can be argued that there might be certain right and proper changes desired, by my right hon. Friend after consultation with interested bodies, but they might not come strictly within the wording of Clause 1. In view of the possibility of some doubt on the matter, and rather than allow it to be open to question after the Order had been laid before the House, it seemed desirable that the powers of the Board should be fully adequate. The particular point we had in mind was the possibility that at some time it might be desired that elections should take place. It is quite clear that rules would be required for such elections, but at the moment they are not provided for in Section 3 or any other Section as the Act now stands. I would further point out that any Order will be placed before the House and will not become operative until there has been a full opportunity for the House to consider it and to raise matters on the Floor, if it is so desired.

Sir H. Williams: I would press the matter a little further. As a rule, when

we pass an Act which creates a body we provide precisely how the body is set up. Now we are abolishing the existing constitution of the Central Midwives Board and we are saying that the constitution shall, in future, be such as the Minister, not Parliament, may desire.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That is quite beside the point. Parliament has full control. It is quite wrong for the hon. Member to try to pretend that Parliament no longer has control of the situation. It has, because, as I say, the Orders are placed before the House and there is full opportunity for discussion before they become operative.

5.0 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: If the Parliamentary Secretary had not been so impatient he need not have made that last little speech. I was about to point out that when an Order is brought before us we cannot amend it but can only say "Yes" or "No," which is entirely different from setting up a constitution by an Act of Parliament the terms of which can be discussed in the House and amended if we think fit. If we leave the constitution to be created by the Minister the only power which the House will have will be to say "We will not have it. Go back and think out a new one," and we are reluctant to do that.
The constitution should be the result of long discussion and negotiations. The Clause and the Amendment take very autocratic powers, and it is no good saying that Parliament will have control because we know quite well that we cannot amend Orders when we discuss them. Of the 2,000 or 3,000 statutory instruments that are published each year—a number of them are discussed, but many are not because they are of trifling importance—those which we do discuss we cannot amend. To object to part of an Order we have to vote against the whole thing. The Parliamentary Secretary said that Parliament has complete control, but that is not true and never has been true in regard to delegated legislation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2. line 4, after "Scotland," insert:
with the substitution, for the reference to section three of the Midwives Act, 1902, of a reference to section five of the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915.

In line 6, leave out "Midwives (Scotland) Act," and insert "said Act of."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(RULES AS TO MIDWIVES' UNIFORMS)

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out from "midwives," to the end of line 42.
This is a very simple Amendment which, I hope, will give more flexibility to the Clause. The purpose of the subsection is to give extended powers to the Central Midwives Board, but I feel that the inclusion of the words which I suggest should be deleted would actually limit the authority of the Board and give the right to the midwife to accept or reject the rules of the Board. It would be far better to leave it to the Board to draw up the rules and provide the amount of flexibility it thinks fit.
There is a second point. In conferring this absolute right upon a midwife to wear the national uniform, we are giving that right irrespective of rules framed by the Board, and there is more than a chance that this may create difficulties and confusion, for instance, with midwives in municipal service. The custom has been for each local authority to supply a uniform of its own design and colour to all outdoor nurses, including midwives. When the municipal midwifery service was set up in Glasgow, the uniform was the usual green uniform which was already very well known and very much liked there. "The Green Lady" is a well known term in Glasgow, the work done by the nurses was appreciated and they stood very high in public esteem. The municipal midwives inherited that fine tradition when they took over the uniform. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it would appear that municipal midwives, particularly in Glasgow, could, if they so desired, insist on being supplied with the national uniform, and we should then find confusion as a result of two uniforms being worn in the same service. I hope that the Minister will agree to the deletion of these words, which will make the matter clearer, and leave it to the Central Midwives Board

to come to whatever arrangements they like with the local authorities.

Dr. Hill: I hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment. The arguments used by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) were two-fold. He argued, first, that the Clause interferes with the power of the Central Midwives Board. I fail to understand that. The main purpose of the Clause is to give the Board power to frame rules covering the uniform, and the Board having utilised that power and designed a uniform—this is neither the place nor the time to contemplate the possibilities of what the uniform might be—surely it is a reasonable addition, which was made in another place, that the midwives should have the right to wear the uniform should they so desire. I do not appreciate the point that for the work of the Board in designing the uniform, to find expression in the wearing of the uniform by mid-wives, would in any way limit the power of the Board. It would seem to give it expression, artistic or otherwise, in the form of uniforms being worn.
One can appreciate the second part of the argument which the hon. Member put forward, that for the right to be given to the midwife to wear the nationally approved uniform would mean some conflict between local uniforms—if I may without impertinence use the word "local" in relation to the city of Glasgow—and the national uniform. On balance, I think it right that at a time when everybody desires that the status of the midwife should be recognised there should be a national uniform which midwives anywhere can wear. On balance, I think that such a nationally adopted and worn uniform is to be preferred to the competition, the conflict and the efforts of local health authorities.
The words which were added in another place seem to be a sensible and reasonable addition to the Clause. If the Clause empowers the Board to create a national uniform it is reasonable and sensible that, the uniform having been designed, mid-wives should be permitted as of right to wear it, which in practice would mean, I admit, that where local health authorities desired their midwives to wear a uniform, it would be the national uniform because I believe that midwives generally would adopt the uniform.
I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment. I notice a number of Amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister and, bearing in mind that this was raised on Second Reading, I feel sure—I hope I am right in feeling sure—that the Minister would not have dodged the issue by refraining from putting an Amendment on the Order Paper in his own name and accepting an Amendment put down in this way to deal with it. I sincerely hope that the Minister will resist this attempt to remove the added words and that the Committee will regard those words as reasonable and sensible and, indeed, as the logical conclusion to the Clause.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Amendment is sponsored by the City of Glasgow. Those of us whose names are put to it were asked to express the point of view of the Glasgow Corporation, which has definite views and a definite tradition in these matters. The words to which they object are the words which make this permissive—
and which they shall have the right to wear should they so desire.
If there is to be any uniform, does this Clause give the right to people to contract out? What would we say if other branches of the Services had that right? Would this same principle, for example, affect the Services and would some be allowed to contract out of the wearing of the uniform while others would not have that right?
The view of the City of Glasgow is that this is now a recognised public service and that we are far removed from the ideas of private enterprise symbolised by Mrs. Gamp. We believe that this uniform recognises a definite service, and that this recognised uniform should be as respected as the uniform of the Police Force or of the Fire Service or of any of the other necessary and honoured public services.
Again, there arises the question of how this would affect the expense. If some people decide not to wear the uniform the expense might have to be borne by others. Those of us who have put down this Amendment have been guided by the experience of the members of the Glasgow Corporation, and we hope it will commend itself to the Minister.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment, which seems to me quite wrong. It is reasonable that midwives should be able to wear the national uniform when they so desire. Surely it will be less expensive if there is a national uniform because, when midwives move from one district to another, they do not have to get a fresh uniform or be provided with one. This profession is gradually arising from a Sairey Gamp type to that of an honourable profession, and in most of the professions a uniform can be worn if so desired. It is a great advantage that not only people in Glasgow but people all over the country should recognise the importance and value of "The Green Lady." We are able, wherever we may be, to recognise the postmen and the firemen by their national uniforms, and it is equally desirable that midwives should have a special uniform so that they can be recognised wherever they go in the course of carrying out their important and merciful duties.

5.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): From the Debate which has taken place it would seem that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the words which this Amendment seeks to leave out. They were added to this Clause in another place. We feel that they are open to objection. They purport to give to mid-wives, including those in the service of the Crown and of hospital boards, as well as those in the service of local authorities, a right to wear the midwives uniform irrespective of any conditions of service entailing the wearing of some other uniform.
On the one side there is the argument that these words interfere with the power of the Central Midwives Board and, on the other side, that they do not interfere with that power. Neither the Department of Health for Scotland nor the Ministry of Health for England and Wales feel strongly on this point, but we feel that it is an undesirable interference in a matter which is better left to arrangement or negotiation between employer and employees. If the words proposed to be left out were left out, the matter would be left either to arrangement or negotiation between employers and employees.
However, as I said at the beginning, there seems to be doubt in the minds of hon. Members whether the words that were added in another place really secure to the midwives the right claimed for them. That is one reason why we are glad that this Amendment has been put down because, before this Bill actually reaches the Statute Book, we should like it to be clear that the words added in another place secure the right to mid-wives which was suggested in another place.
Even if it were true that they did secure that right, the words now proposed to be left out would be objectionable as leaving the precise extent of the rights of the midwives in considerable doubt. On all counts, therefore, we are willing to accept this Amendment. There is only one further point. It has been suggested that nurses in other nursing professions have this right, but the words originally in the Bill, without the addition of these new words, gave the same right to mid-wives as the Nursing Act gave to all the other nurses in Great Britain.

Miss Horsbrugh: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Lady who said that the Department of Health for Scotland and the Ministry of Health for England and Wales have no strong feelings on this subject. I can assure her that we all gathered that because of the fact that this addition was made on 30th March, the official Amendments were on the Paper last week, and it was not until this morning that an Amendment to leave out those words appeared.
Secondly, the hon. Lady has said that she is not quite sure if these words will really give the right to the midwives intended by those in another place and by my hon. Friends on both sides of the Committee who have spoken this afternoon. If that is the case, I suggest that before Report stage the hon. Lady should consult her advisers and that words should be put down in an Amendment to give midwives the right of being able to wear their national uniform. We have heard that the Ministry have no strong feeling about the matter, and, also, that they are in some doubt as to whether these words really give, as we want to give, this right

to the midwives. Those are the first two points.
Now we come to the main point: Do we want the midwives to have this right? The hon. Lady said that her Department and the Ministry of Health were not minded one way or the other, but many people have thought quite seriously about this. It is a small detail, I agree, but during the Second Reading of the Bill hon. Member after hon. Member said, "We want to build up this service. We want to say to midwives, 'You are now a national service. Certain changes are being made, and we wish this to be a gesture to show that we now regard the midwives' profession as a national service'". Because of that, it was thought that the Central Midwives Board could design a uniform.
Having said that we want to give the midwives this national outlook. We want people to look upon them as a national service and having written into the Bill that the Central Midwives Board can design a uniform, it seems a little strange that we should then leave the position in this vague way, after being told this afternoon that the City of Glasgow do not wish this uniform to be worn.
I wish that the hon. Lady would take this matter back for further consideration. I have consulted nurses' associations and a good many people, and until I heard today from hon. Members opposite that one local authority—although a very big one, I agree—does not want the national uniform, I had not heard a single objection to it. We have learned that the Ministry have no great feelings either way, and if it is merely a question of the words not being correct, it should not be beyond the power of the two Departments, if they wish to allow the midwives to have what they are asking for, to devise words, before the Report stage, which would achieve for the mid-wives all that we have promised for them and show them to be a national service.

Mr. Messer: I want to reinforce the appeal that this matter be reconsidered, whatever happens to the Amendment this afternoon. If the Amendment is accepted, I can see no purpose whatever in the Clause.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Oh.

Mr. Messer: It is a matter of what one can see. Those in the Ministry and behind the drafting can see all sorts of things which those who are not permitted to enter the holy of holies cannot see.
We are giving to the Central Midwives Board the power to make rules and to design uniforms, but if these words are omitted we are, in effect, saying that although they can do this no midwife can claim the right of wearing the uniform. The weakness is contained in that giving of the right. I can understand that there may be something to be said for qualifying that right; that Glasgow, for instance, might say that conflict may arise, but I am not sure that that would not happen if the Amendment were accepted. If midwives are to be given a national uniform, what will happen unless we tell them that they can exercise their right to wear it?

Mr. Blenkinsop: The nurses——

Mr. Messer: I am speaking about mid-wives; nurses are very different. Let anyone ask a midwife if she is prepared to be on the same grade as a nurse, and hear her reply. She considers that she is a member of a profession, and that nurses have not yet attained that dignity. We are dealing with a body of women who, very gradually and very slowly, have been able to attain a position where they are now recognised as a specialist branch of the Health Service. Incidentally, midwives do, not merely the field work or the domiciliary work, but hospital work as well. If there is to be a national uniform, of what use will that uniform be if we say, by the Bill, that those who ought to be entitled to wear it, have no right to claim that entitlement?
I hope that the Minister can settle this apparent conflict. The Amendment ought to be taken back so that the words can be reconsidered with a view to reconciling the existing difficulty of saying, in effect, that the midwives are entitled to wear the national uniform but not giving them, by the Bill, the right to do so.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I began by being mildly in favour of the Amendment, but when I heard the speech of the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary

of State I was really astonished. This is a matter which has been canvassed over a fairly considerable time, and one on which those concerned have expressed quite strong views. The midwives and their organisations certainly hold strong views about this matter, whatever may be the views of the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland. If the Government were to hold a view which is clearly quite different from that of the midwives, both organised and individually, they should have expressed that view rather earlier in the day and not when discussing a starred Amendment on the Floor of the Chamber. I do not know whether the Bill is to complete its passage today or whether the Report Stage is to be held at a later date——

Mr. Blenkinsop: Mr. Blenkinsop indicated assent.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I see that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees. There will, therefore, be some further opportunity to consider this matter. Even so, the hon. Lady who spoke from the Government Bench said, "We feel that these words are open to objection." If that is the considered view of the Government, it is a most extraordinary way to make it known. They have put down no Amendment of their own, taken no action, and given no warning to the Opposition or to anyone concerned. They have merely expressed this view on the Floor at a very late hour.
We on this side are twitted with forcing "snap" decisions on the House. If ever there was a "snap" decision, this is it. If the Government do not give any idea of what is in their minds until a few minutes before the decision has to be taken, they cannot really complain if we on this side occasionally do the same thing the other way round. I do not know what is the Government's attitude. At the moment, this would appear to be a back-bench Amendment which has the benevolent support of the Government. Is it intended that it should now be regarded as an official Amendment in the name of the Government; or if a Division is to follow, will it be a free vote or are the Government Whips to be on? This is a matter of some importance. I do not suppose that the Government would resign if they were defeated on this, but there are quite a lot of ladies who regard this issue as being very important indeed.
I ask the Government not to treat any decision which is arrived at this afternoon as one which will affect the matter one way or the other. Quite clearly, we must consult our constituents and those who are interested, and it may be that we shall come to a very different decision in the light of what they have to tell us following today's Debate.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Messer: In my speech I said "the Clause," I meant the reference to uniform in the Clause.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I only rise to utter three sentences, but I think they should be uttered. I am glad that the hon. baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) is about to add his name to the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) who, I am sure, will welcome his agreement. The Amendment has been put forward on one ground and we are asked by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to accept it on a completely different ground. It was said that the Amendment was put forward because the City of Glasgow wanted to keep its green uniform. That means that other authorities may want separate uniforms and we shall have green for Glasgow, blue for Horsham, violet for the Orkneys, buff for Orpington, primrose for Beaconsfield, and so on. That goes completely to the root of the matter, that there should be a national uniform. That is point number one.
My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary suggested that the Government would not be disappointed if the House were to accept the Amendment because when there words were put in in another place, no one found out what they meant and we are not quite sure now what they mean. I do not regard that as unusual in regard to proceedings in another place, but it does not seem good enough for us.
Another point which should be made before this discussion ends—and I welcome the suggestion by the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) that we might have an opportunity of looking at this again—is that whether we leave the words out, or amend them, the Clause means precisely the same thing, because the operative word is

"may." The Committee are arguing whether we should define that "may" means may. I am sorry to intrude on the discussion, but I think that might help to clarify it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I can assure both sides of the Committee that we were very anxious to get some expression of opinion about this. On the Second Reading I mentioned that this appeared to be about the only matter on which there were differences of opinion and we were anxious to get the views of hon. Members on it, and we shall be perfectly willing to consider the matter further. We were also anxious that it should be understood by the Committee that there were difficulties with the wording that has been inserted in another place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) has mentioned, it is very doubtful—I cannot put it higher than that—whether the words suggested in another place really add anything to the wording which was already in the Clause.
We were in this difficulty, that if we had allowed this wording automatically to stand we would have been doing an injustice to the House. We would have been allowing the House to pass an amended Clause on the understanding that it meant something other than what we feel it probably does mean. For example, it is probably true that those midwives who are already serving with a local authority are not affected by this Amendment and if they have a contract with the authority which specifies the wearing of a particular uniform would still be required to do so. It is probable—I cannot say more—that they would not be affected. As far as new midwives taking on duties with local authorities are concerned, the local authority can clearly specify in their agreement that it is part of the agreement that they should wear the local authority's uniform and therefore they would not be affected by the Amendment made in another place.
I suggest that there is this difficulty of trying to meet a desire that there should be a national uniform. Is it really intended that that should apply to those in the Armed Forces? There are some cases which will be affected in that way. Is it really intended that it should apply to those serving in hospitals, as well as to those serving in local authorities' domiciliary


services? If we are to meet what I think is the wish of most hon. Members, the Clause would have to be amended and there would have to be some restrictions on the right. Because of that, I suggest that the best thing we can do is to take this back and have a further look at it before the Report stage. The Report stage is not being taken today and there will be an opportunity for this to be done.

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Gentleman says he is going to look at the wording to get it clear but what wording does he mean? Is he going to put down an Amendment for the purpose of ensuring that the midwife will be entitled to wear a national uniform, or to prevent her wearing a national uniform? That is not clear to us. He said that the wording is not clear, but the Committee wants to know what wording he means. Although it would be interesting to discuss uniforms of firemen, police and others in public service, we have one task at present, to discuss whether midwives are to be permitted to have a national uniform; and we want to know whether in looking for clearer wording he is looking for clearer wording to give them that right, or to take it away.

Mr. Blenkinsop: All I say is that we shall look at the whole problem again so that there shall be an opportunity of discussing this question again at a later stage. There are two points; first, the perfectly proper question whether we want to impose a national costume on local authorities whether they want it or not and, second, whether we want to apply that not only to the local authorities' service, but also to midwives serving in hospitals, which I do not think is the real desire of hon., Members. I am not sure, but I do not imagine that it is the desire to apply it to those in the Services. It is clear there must be some restriction, but I will make sure that there is opportunity for discussion on the Report stage.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be plenty of time to consider any Amendment the Government bring forward? I understand that, having heard this Debate, the Government are themselves to be responsible for a further Amendment. It will be important to have some opportunity of discussing the proposed new Government Amendment with

those of our constituents who are concerned This is not a matter of great principle on which we hold individual views, but a matter of importance to those concerned, and I hope the Government will ensure plenty of time before this matter is finally disposed of

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, we are anxious that there shall be agreement about this. This is not a matter on which we want to divide but we want it to be something which local authorities as well as the mid-wives will be able to accept.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, in view of the Rules of the House on Amendments on Report stage, to put the Amendment down in good time, because on Report stage a manuscript Amendment could not be accepted, and I hope it will not be necessary to table an Amendment to the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: In view of the promise of the Minister to reconsider the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14. (SHORT TITLE, CONSTRUCTION, CITATION, EXTENT AND REPEAL.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, to leave out subsection (5).
This Amendment is related to a new Clause appearing on the Order Paper introducing a new repeals Clause and adds to Part II of the Third Schedule. The intention is to extend the scope of the repeals to include some Acts so that they may be consolidated later, and I hope not too much later. These are set out in detail in Part II of the Third Schedule and entirely consist of provisions which become obsolete or unnecessary by the lapse of time.

Mr. L. Hale: Could we be told what is the important difference between subsection (5), which is being left out, and which appears to be clearly intelligible and clearly put and the words of the new Clause which is later to be moved.


The first part of it is a sentence which appears to be tautological:
The enactments mentioned in the first and second columns of Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act, being enactments which to the extent specified in the third column of that part of that Schedule should be repealed in view of the foregoing provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed to the extent so specified.
What is the improvement which is sought to be made? Why is it necessary to make Acts of Parliament longer than they are? Is there any question of payment by results involved or not?

Mr. Blenkinsop: In the new Clause we are also referring to Part II of the Schedule, which we are inserting, and which was not included in the old Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(FEES FOR EXMINATIONS AND CERTIFICATES.)

(1) Section five of the Midwives Act, 1902 (whereof the first two provisions, as amended by the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, and subsection (3) of section nine of the Midwives Act, 1936, provide for the payment to the Central Midwives Board by a woman presenting herself for examination or certificate of such fees, not exceeding one guinea in each case, as may be determined by the Board with the approval of the Minister), shall have effect with the substitution, for the words from the beginning to "paid to the Central Midwives Board," of the words "There shall be payable to the Central Midwives Board by a woman in respect of any examination for which she presents herself and in respect of the issue to her of a certificate such fees respectively as may be determined by the Board with the approval of the Minister."
(2) Section thirteen of the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915 (whereof the first two provisions, as amended by subsection (3) of section eight of the Maternity Services (Scotland) Act, 1937, provide for the payment to the Central Midwives Board for Scotland by a woman presenting herself for examination or certificate of such fees, not exceeding one guinea. in each case, as may be determined by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of State), shall have effect with the substitution, for the words from the beginning to "paid to the Board," of the words "There shall be payable to the Board by a woman in respect of any examination for which she presents herself and in respect of the issue to her of a certificate such fees respectively as may be determined by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of State."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is merely to make a provision similar to that already made for nurses—to entitle the Central Midwives Board to vary the fees for examinations which are at present held at an upper limit of one guinea in each case. In view of the increased cost of the service, we think it right that the Central Midwives Board should have the power which has already been provided in an earlier Act in relation to nurses.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER OF LOCAL SUPERVISING AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR PUPIL MIDWIVES.)

8.—(1) A local supervising authority may provide, or may improve or furnish, residential accommodation for women undergoing in their area courses of training with a view to obtaining certificates under the Midwives Act, 1902.

(2) the Minister may authorise a local supervising authority to purchase compulsorily land for the purpose of the provision of such accommodation as aforesaid, and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946 (except section two thereof) shall apply in relation to the compulsory purchase of land under this subsection as if it had been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act.

(3) Expenditure incurred under this section by a local supervising authority shall be deemed for the purposes of section fifty-three of the National Health Service Act, 1946 (which provides for the payment of grants to local health authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in carrying out their functions as local health authorities), to be expenditure incurred by the authority in carrying out their functions under that Act as a local health authority.

(4) This section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution, for references to the Minister, the Midwives Act, 1902, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and the National Health Service Act, 1946. of references respectively to the Secretary of State, the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947, and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause merely puts back into the Bill a Clause which had, for technical reasons, to be withdrawn in another place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(EXPENSES.)

13. Any increase attributable to the passing of this Act in the sums which, under Part I or II of the Local Government Act, 1948, are payable out of the moneys provided by Parliament shall be defrayed out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause was omitted in another place for reasons of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(REPEALS.)

(1) The enactments mentioned in the first and second columns of Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act, being enactments which to the extent specified in the third column of that Part of that Schedule should be repealed in view of the foregoing provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed to the extent so specified.
(2) The enactments mentioned in the first and second columns of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act, being enactments which to the extent specified in the third column of that Part of that Schedule have by lapse of time or otherwise become obsolete or unnecessary and which should be repealed with a view to the consolidation of enactments relating to mid-wives, are hereby repealed to the extent so specified.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, together with the alterations to the Third Schedule, to which I have already referred, is an attempt to aid in the later consolidation of the Midwives Acts.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT NOT TO BE REMUNERATED FOR SITTING ON EITHER OF THE BOARDS.)

No person shall be disqualified for being elected to, or sitting or voting as a member

of, the House of Commons by reason of being a member of the Central Midwives Board or the Central Midwives Board for Scotland; but, in relation to a member of either of those Boards who is a member of the House of Commons, section nine of this Act shall have effect with the omission of references to loss of earnings.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is to make provision for such Members of Parliament as may from time to time be added to the Central Midwives Board. It is desirable that such a person should not be prevented from being a member of the Board by virtue of the rule which prevents Members from holding an office of profit under the Crown. This Clause is designed to deal with that point, and provides that a Member shall not receive from the Board anything beyond his bare expenses for travelling and subsistence, to which I am sure we should all agree.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 10, line 36, at the end, to add:

26 Geo. 5. &amp; 1 Edw. 8. c. 40.
The Midwives Act, 1936.
In section nine, subsection (3).


1 Edw. 8. &amp; 1 Geo. 6. c. 30.
The Maternity Services (Scotland) Act. 1937.
In section eight, subsection (3).

This and the other Amendment to the Third Schedule which I shall move, have been discussed, and relate to our desire at a later date to consolidate the Mid-wives Acts.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 36, at end, add:


PART II


REPEALS OF OBSOLETE OR UNNECESSARY ENACTMENTS


Session and Chapter
Short Title
Extent of Repeal


2 Edw.7.c. 17
The Midwives Act, 1902
In section one, in subsection (3), the words "and regulations."




In section three in paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (d), and in paragraph V, the words "and regulations."




In section seven, the words "in all courts" and the words "until the contrary be made to appear."




In section eight, paragraph (7).




In section twelve, the words "with or without hard labour."




Section fourteen.


5 &amp; 6 Geo. 5. c. 91.
The Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915.
In section one, in subsection (3), the words "and regulations" and, in subsection (5), the words "by the rules of approved societies or insurance committees."




Section two.




In section three, the words from "which shall consist of" to "British Medical Association," the words "as aforesaid," and the words from "The meetings of the Board" to "Edinburgh."




In section five, in paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (d), and in paragraph (5), the words "and regulations."




In section six, in subsection (1), in paragraph (a), the words "or regulations."




In section nine, the words "or regulations."




In section fifteen, the words "in all courts" and the words "until the contrary be made to appear."




In section sixteen, paragraph (7), and the words "and women shall be eligible to serve on any such committees."




In section twenty, the words "with or without hard labour."




Section twenty-seven.


8 &amp; 9 Geo. 5. c. 43.
The Midwives Act, 1918
In section six, in subsection (1), in paragraph (a), the words "or regulations."




In section eight, in subsection (2), the words "or regulations."


26 Geo. 5. &amp; 1 Edw. 8. c. 40.
The Midwives Act, 1936
In section nine, subsection (5).

—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

Orders of the Day — DENTAL FEES (REDUCTION)

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Baird: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 24th April, 1950, entitled the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Fees (Amendment) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 663), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be annulled.
It is generally known in the House, and I think all sides of the House will

agree, that in relation to the cost of the health services as a whole, the cost of the general dental services are out of proportion. I think that on all sides of the House there will be agreement that there should be some reduction in dentists' remuneration. I, for one, agree entirely with the Minister in regard to some cut for dental remuneration. At the present time the cost of the dental services is running as high as, if not a little higher than, the cost of the general medical services, and while there are some 9,000 dentists on the register there are some 19,000 general practitioners.
My reason for moving this Motion tonight is not because I object to a cut but because I believe that the Minister's method of cutting the remuneration of


dentists is wrong. Perhaps I might enlighten the House by recalling that some 12 months ago dentists' remuneration was cut by 20 per cent. The Minister has now arbitrarily imposed a further cut of 10 per cent. in all dentists' remuneration, that is from the monthly cheque which the dentist is paid, 10 per cent. will be deducted each month. As a result of this cut all sections of the dental profession will suffer. The dentist who is slow and a good worker and who is doing a limited amount of work, will suffer just as much as the dentist who is making as much as he can, working as fast as he can to get as big a turnover as he can.
My objection is that the aim of the Government should be not to penalise the good dentist, and that is what the Minister is doing, but to get to the root of the problem and penalise the "spivs" in the dental profession who at present are carrying on a racket and exploiting both the Government and the general public. My objection is that the good and the bad will suffer alike under this Regulation.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member has made an allegation against his own profession. I do not wish to engender heat, but he has described certain people as the "spivs of the dental profession." Would the hon. Member indicate what he means by that term—what sort of people are the "spivs"? I think that is important in order to avoid unnecessary altercation.

Mr. Baird: I do not wish to begin slandering anyone tonight, or making any accusations even if I know they are true. My main reason in moving this Motion was to see whether I could bring both sides together, and stop what is going on. If the hon. Member wants quotations I will give him one. I heard about it two days ago. The wife of an official of this House went for dental treatment. She was given an appointment two months later. The dentist does both private and public work. She went into the waiting room among a lot of other people. The receptionist said to her, "Come along Mrs. So-and-so, you are one of the charity patients, aren't you?" That is one of the actions of the "spivs," and I could give many more of all types, but I do not want to go into that tonight. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) once

accused me of making a filthy speech because I made such accusations, but from the correspondence which he got afterwards he will know that what I said was quite true.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (: As I have been challenged, I think that the instance given by the hon. Member is singularly inappropriate. What he has described is a piece of gross discourtesy on the part of an assistant, and seems to me to have nothing to do with his main accusation. As for the correspondence I got after the speech, I got many more letters in favour of what I said than against it.

Mr. Baird: As I was going on to say, there has been much loose talk recently about the income dentists have been making. It has even been quoted in this House that dentists are making £30,000 a year, and so on. The fact of the matter is that the figures quoted, both in this House and in the Press, have almost always been gross figures and referred to a very small section of the dental profession. Even though they are gross figures, the Ministry has allowed 52 per cent. of that figure to the dentist for his expenses. That figure of 52 per cent. was arrived at in the early days of the Health Act. Since then there has been a cut of 20 per cent. and another cut now of 30 per cent., but the cost of running his practice is still the same. The dentist still has to pay his mechanics—and pay them even a higher wage now—and for his materials. Therefore, while his gross income has been cut by 30 per cent. his expenses are still as high. I would suggest that the amount of percentage which a dentist is allowed for expenses should fee not 52 per cent., but something like 70 per cent., because his income has been cut and his expenses are still as great.
The House should realise that dentists are working very long hours to make these high incomes. I should have declared my interest as a practising dentist. The demand for dental service today is very great indeed. I do a certain amount of dental practice. I start work at 8 o'clock in the morning and I can get as many patients as I want, to come to me at 8 o'clock in the morning. Indeed, if I were willing to start at 7 o'clock, it would be quite possible to get patients to come at 7 o'clock, 7.30 and 8 o'clock.
The reason is that there is a much bigger demand now for dental services, especially from the lower income groups, than ever before, and dentists are doing very much more work than before. Therefore I say that whatever cut we do impose, we should see it does not penalise the man who is doing his best to work the Act sincerely and to do good work. We should use any opportunity we have to cut down and discourage—I repeat it again—the "spivs" in the dental profession.
There are various ways in which we could do this and I feel that the Ministry has gone the wrong way about it. There should be more supervision of the work done by the dentists. We have a dental staff in the Ministry of Health whose work is first of all to ensure that the best conservative treatment is being followed by the dental profession. Secondly, it is their duty to ensure that there is every reasonable economy in the working of the Health Act. If this dental staff of the Ministry of Health were at full strength, or even at the strength of its present establishment, we could ensure much better control over expenditure. The establishment is 44 dental officers, but there are only 22. The establishment for the Dental Estimates Board at Eastbourne is 12 dentists but they have only five.
The reason is simple. While we are paying dentists in private practices, a salary at least as high as the Spens Committee report suggested—£1,650, and perhaps a little higher—the dentists employed by the Ministry of Health to carry out the most responsible job of adjudicating on the work of the dentists are being paid a much smaller income. I have previously suggested that the Ministry, by an expenditure of a few thousand pounds in increasing its salary of its inspectorate, and perhaps employing a few more on that work, could save millions of pounds. I wish to ask, and I should like a reply, if any Government inquiry has been made to see if this could be done and what the saving would be in hard cash. I suggest it would fee millions of pounds.
There are other ways in which a saving could be made. The Dental Estimates Board at Eastbourne, to which all cases are referred, can refer the estimates sent

to it, back to the Ministry of Health officials, who can inspect the patients before treatment is commenced. I wonder if the House realises how much of this supervision there really is and how many of the estimates sent into the Dental Estimates Board are referred back for inspection? Is it 20 per cent.; 10 per cent.; 5 per cent. or 1 per cent?
I will make an estimate that the number of dental estimates which are sent in to the Dental Estimates Board and referred back for inspection is as low as 0.2 or 0.3 per cent. I believe that in a large proportion of the cases that are referred, the amount of the estimate is curtailed. I believe that on the average the amount of saving on the cases examined by the Ministry officials is 20 per cent. We have already a saving of 20 per cent. on 0.2 per cent. of the estimates referred. If we referred back more for inspection, the saving would amount to millions of pounds a year.
There is another point. The number of cases for treatment which are referred are, as I say, very small. The Minister, I believe, has a right to justify in this House the type and standard of work which is being done by the dental profession. If only.2 per cent. is being examined—and I hope that he will disagree with this figure if he can—how can the Minister possibly get up in the House of Commons and say he is giving value for money? He does not know the type of work being done. He has no way of indicating the type of work being done. Therefore I believe that by bringing up the establishment of the Dental Estimates Board and of the dental officers of the Ministry of Health to full strength and paying them adequate salaries—and it may be by extending the inspectorate a little further—millions of pounds could be saved.
If a cut has to be imposed—and I think it has—there is a much fairer way than the type of cut imposed by the Ministry which is a 10 per cent. overall cut. I believe it would be much better if the cut was on a sliding scale. I would suggest that a dentist whose gross earnings were, say, £450 per month—that is gross earnings, remember—should be cut by 2½ per cent. A dentist who is making £500 per month gross should be cut by 10 per cent. and a dentist making £600 a month gross by 20 per cent.
In other words, the cut should be graduated so that the man doing good work and taking his time, should not be penalised. The more a dentist was exploiting the position and working too long hours, the more the cut would be. The danger is that if we impose a cut on the type of man of whom we read in the Press, who is earning £20,000 or £30,000 a year, he will simply work a little harder and the standard of his work will fall lower still. That is what is happening. The best way would be to spread the cut as much as possible so that the "spivs" who are making the big gross incomes would be penalised, but the average dentist doing a good job of work would not.
Hon. Members opposite know that I hold no brief for the dentists, but I believe that the Minister has been arbitrary in the cut which he has made. He did not consider the matter fully before he made it. Something should be done now to break this deadlock between the dental profession and the Minister. I appeal to both sides. I appeal to the dental profession. I believe that there has been a change of heart recently and that the dental profession would like another chance to consider this problem. I appeal to the Minister to give them the opportunity. If they are in favour of the type of cut I suggest—a sliding scale or graduated cut—some gesture from him would go a long way towards reopening negotiations.
In the interests of an honourable profession which has done good work in the past but which, because of its political attitude over the last three years, has lost all public support, we must make an effort. It is bad for a profession such as this to lose public support, and the time has come when we must try to come together and to get the new scheme working properly from the dental point of view. Some gesture from the Minister would be welcomed both by the dentists and the general public. I hope that as a result of what the Minister has to say, I shall be allowed to withdraw this Motion later.

6.3 p.m.

Miss Burton: Differently from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), I probably speak for most hon. Members of this House irrespective of

party in that I speak from the consumer end of the dentist's drill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Does the hon. Lady rise to second the Motion?

Miss Burton: No, Sir.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We must have a seconder.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I beg formally to second the Motion.

Miss Burton: May I thank you, Sir, and the House for the courtesy shown to a very ignorant new Member. I speak from the consumer end of the drill, rather differently from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. I do not support his Prayer, but I think he has a case when he speaks about the cutting of all dentists' earnings.
I am in the fortunate position of having a dentist who gives service under the National Health Service Act. That dentist has spoken very strongly to me about the inflated earnings of certain members of his profession. He has expressed a wish that it were possible to cut those inflated earnings rather than the earnings of those people who do a solid job. I think we all agree with him. I should imagine that it would be rather difficult to frame a law which would cut earnings in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East.
Recently in this House in an Adjournment Debate we discussed the scarcity of dentists for the school dental service. Obviously, if there are to be these inflated earnings in the dental profession it will become more difficult than ever to attract dentists to the school dental service. I have tried to get some figures of dentists' earnings at present, but I was not successful. I wanted some general guide showing earnings since the National Health Service Act came into force, so that I could compare them with the position before that date.
I believe that in this country the strongest force is that of public opinion. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House regularly get complaints from their constituents. I have two letters here from people who are not being treated well by the exceptions who are doing great disservice to the members of the dental profession, most of whom


do their job well. We all know that some of these people get inflated salaries. Last week we heard of a dentist in Wales who made £24,000 a year. Cases like that make the headlines, but the dental practitioner who does a good job of work is not mentioned.
If the dentists everywhere and we in this House expressed very strongly our disapproval of these few dentists who are rendering a great disservice and who are being anti-social—using the word "social" in its best sense—perhaps the position would improve. I have here a letter from a constituent and I have confirmed the facts of the case. This constituent had a daughter who came home for five weeks from college. She wanted to go to the dentist whom she had attended for 17 years. She went to that dentist, and the first remark he made was, "Is this a paying case or is it under National Health?" She said that she required treatment under the National Health Service and he replied, "I am sorry. I can do nothing about it."
I took up that case with the Ministry of Health, and I received the answer, which I knew they must give me, that legally that dentist was within his rights, and that there was nothing to compel anyone to join the service or, having joined it, to take people. Nor was there anything to prevent them taking private patients as well. One might imagine that the dentist had so much to do that he could not take on any more work. In that case, his refusal would have been social as well as legitimate.
Three weeks later, the father of the girl went to the dentist. Fortunately, I am not one of those people who have to wear dentures, but I should imagine that it is just as serious if a tooth breaks in ones dentures as it is if a natural tooth breaks. He went to the dentist and asked to have his denture mended. The dentist said, "Is this a paying case?" The man replied, "No," and the dentist answered, "Then, I am very sorry, but I cannot attend to you." The man could not wait for the work to be done later, so he paid 17s. for the repair to be made. I am aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House condemn practices of that kind.
Only last week in my constituency a man came to me and complained that he

had been unable to find a dentist who would take him under the National Health Service. I hope that we shall be able to find him a dentist. If the dental profession can do anything to prevent dentists bringing discredit on them in that way, they will do their profession a great deal of good. That is why I raised the matter tonight. I do not support the Prayer, but I am glad that it has given me an opportunity to bring these matters forward.

6.8 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). She and I were opponents in 1945 and, to some extent at any rate, we shall be opponents this evening. I am not certain just how the Debate will go. The purpose of this Prayer is simply to annul the Statutory Instrument which effects a flat rate reduction of 10 per cent. on the gross payments made to dentists under the National Health Service, and nothing else.
I do not deny for a moment that there is need for some action in connection with the dental service. I think that there I can speak for hon. and right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House. Clearly, all is not well with the dental section of the National Health Service. Last year the country spent £48 million and that was wholly divisible between some 10,000 dentists who are now within the scheme. That figure covered dentists in England, Scotland and Wales. It works out at a gross payment of about £4,800, on an average, per dentist per year, and that is ignoring altogether anything which they may have earned outside the scheme. That figure compares with an average of £2,500 a year payable to the doctors within the National Health Service.
It is quite true, of course, that the expenses in the case of the dentist are higher than the expenses in the case of the doctor, but there is something fundamentally wrong when we find that the average dentist is being paid just about twice as much as the average doctor. There must be something wrong with a scheme which produces that result. In the present year, if the Estimate is justified—and the Estimate for the National Health Service has been rather unfortunate


in the past—the average dentist will earn £4,500; but that is a gross payment, out of which he has to find his expenses, amounting to something of the order of 50 per cent. The Spens Report proposed, in effect, that the average gross earnings of a dentist should be about £3,800 a year, and that takes into account the difference in the value of money between the time at which the Spens Committee made their recommendations and today, and also takes into account an arbitrary figure, which is probably not a very wild one, of 52 per cent. for expenses.
Therefore, £3,800 would be the average earnings of a dentist under the Spens Report. That is not, of course, a minimum figure, but an average figure. It contemplates that some dentists would get less, and that others would get more. The average dentist, working by himself and giving full service with all reasonable means in his power, should be able to make gross annual earnings of £3,800.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The hon. Baronet has raised a most important point. He has said that the Spens Report mentioned £3,800 gross. Has he any comparable information from any other source—I think this is within the ambit of our discussion—concerning the figure which the doctor is supposed to be getting? He has mentioned the allowance of 50 per cent. for overheads. How does this figure compare with the doctors"? It seems to me that the figures have gone completely haywire.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is very difficult to compare the figures, because the ratio of expenses in the case of doctors is different. I think the Spens Committee reported that, on the average, a doctor should get about £200 a year net more than the dentist, but, of course, that does not necessarily mean that the doctor would get anything like that, taking the gross figure. At the moment, if we divide the total amount available to the doctors by the number of doctors in the country on the basis of last year's payments, the doctor is getting about £2,500 gross.

The question which I want to put to the Government in the present context is this. We have a Spens recommendation which works out at £3,800, or a total of £38 million for the 10,000 dentists in the

scheme, and yet we have an actual figure of £46 million contained in the current year's Estimates. Is the 10 per cent. cut, which is effective under these Regulations, supposed to bring down the estimated figure to the Spens figure, with certain corrections for increasing numbers of dentists, and so on? It seems to me that these two figures clash, and I ask the Government why they picked on the figure of 10 per cent. Was it with a view to bringing down the £46 million into line with the figure of £38 million? If that was not the basis of the calculation, will they say why they think that 10 per cent. is the proper figure, and why it should not be 5 per cent., or even 15 or 20 per cent.? What was the basis on which they arrived at that percentage?

Mr. Baird: The hon. Gentleman does not understand me on this point. In 1948, the Ministry recognised 52 per cent. as a legitimate expenses allowance on the gross earnings, but, since then, there have been cuts of something like 40 per cent. in the dentists' gross income, and yet he is still only allowed 52 per cent. for expenses. I say that, despite the cuts, he still has to pay his mechanic, his rent and for the materials he uses. His gross income has been cut by 40 per cent., and we should therefore allow him something like 70 per cent. as the deduction for expenses from his gross earnings.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman cannot speak for the Government, and I am asking the Government to make perfectly clear what is the figure which they are taking for expenses. It seems to me that we have these two figures—£38 million on the old basis of the Spens Report and £46 million in the current Estimates—and the difference between them is rather more than 10 per cent. It may be that that difference is accounted for by some additional allowances for disproportionate expenses, but I think the Government must give us an answer to that question. How do they know that 10 per cent. is the right figure?
In the light of the information available to hon. Members, there will probably be no great disposition to cavil at the idea that an average gross figure of between £3,800 and £4,000 is not very wide of the mark of what is desirable for dentists. It seems to me, from such calculations as I am able to make, that some figure of that sort is about right;


in other words, there is a case for saying that a deduction from the total amount payable to the dentists should be made, and I do not think that there is any great difference of opinion between the two sides of the House about a deduction of the order of 10 per cent. being a proper one at the present time. I would emphasise, however, that that is a deduction from the average amount payable to a dentist in respect of a fair year's work. It is important to bear in mind, first of all, that the figure is an average one and that it is in respect of a fair year's work. We should therefore disregard any other sums which may have been earned, in view of the very special circumstances existing at the present time.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion spoke of the inflated incomes which are being earned by certain dentists, and I think the House will agree that there is a figure for a dentist's income beyond which it would not be reasonable for us to go. [HON. MEMBERS: "' No."] Some of my hon. Friends appear to disagree with me, but perhaps they will not do so when I finish my argument and say that I do not think there should be a limit to the high earnings of dentists purely for ideological reasons. On the contrary, if a professional man can do twice as much work in a year as the average professional man, then he deserves to get twice the pay. But that is, of course, if he does twice as much work of the same standard. If the dental service were working perfectly and each separate operation were properly rewarded on a basis of merit—which is the assumption that the Parliamentary Secretary is bound to make because that is the assumption on which the whole Health Service, as at present set up, is being run—if, in other words, this system of piece-work is working properly, then the dentist who earns £15,000 a year is doing exactly three times the number of operations as the dentist earning £5,000 a year. If the Minister's machinery is working properly——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I assume that the hon. Gentleman has heard, as we all have, of professional people who work at different rates. They

may all do equally good work, but some may work very much faster than others.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. I say good luck to the man who works faster if he does equally good work and twice as much of it. I am not concerned with the time he actually spends——

Mr. Baird: How would the hon. Gentleman judge the standards of a dentist's work?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that these were exactly the questions which we raised time and time again when the National Health Service Bill was going through the House. These were the very questions we put to the Government; we said that the scheme would produce exactly these results.

Mr. Baird: Hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted less supervision.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My reason for saying that I think there ought to be a limit to the amount which a dentist is able to earn is not based on ideological grounds—in any case, he will not have much left because our fiscal policy will take care of that—but because the enormous pressure of work on dentists who are making large incomes is beginning to tell on the dentists themselves and on the quality of their work. That is why I think some limit should be set, and that is the fundamental difficulty which this House and the Government have to face. It is the difficulty of the actual shortage of dentists. There are some 10,000 dentists in the National Health Service, and another 1,000 or 2,000 in the service of local authorities or carrying on private practice. That means that there are 12,000 to 13,000, in all, trying to do the work that 15,000 or 16,000 ought to be doing if they are to give the time which we should all like to see them give to their job. That is the problem we have to face.
I hope that today we shall be able to avoid some of the acrimony which has entered past Debates on the dental service, because I think there is a growing appreciation on the other side of the House that some of the things we on this side said in the past are true. We said that the Minister would find that he could not carry out the service he had in mind because there were not the dentists available. We said then, and we say now,


that we accept the principle of free dental service as an essentially desirable aim, but the dilemma which we are now facing is that there are not sufficient dentists to provide such a service.
If we are to give those dentists who are available what we consider is a proper amount of pay and insist that they shall not receive heavy rewards for doing overtime, then we shall not get the work done. On the other hand, if we overpay the dentists, we shall get overtime and all the consequences of which the country is only too well aware. We are trying to get a quart out of a pint pot. The result is that, first of all, there is excessive cost. We are trying to bribe the dentists to do more work than they are physically capable of doing. Incidentally, we are sucking the school dental service completely dry, and there is no one on either side of the House who will deny that fact.
If we reduce the fees payable to dentists—as is now proposed—in order to cut down these excessive costs and to ensure that some of them flow back into the school dental service, we shall find that the queues will grow longer, and, what hon. Members opposite never stop complaining about, that the dentists will tend to go back to private practice. The inevitable result of these Regulations will be to encourage dentists to take private patients because there will be less substantial fees payable in the public service. Hon. Members opposite always talk about that as if it were a wicked thing. In either event, the dentist is treating a patient who is suffering, and it is only natural that he should choose the patient who pays him better.

Mr. Baird: Surely that is a most unprofessional argument? Surely the dentist will treat the patient most in need of his treatment?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If that is the difference between the two sides of the House, it only goes to show that we are living in a real world and that hon. Members are living in a dream world. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a man who has £5 or £10 in his pocket and is able to pay his dentist feels toothache just as much as the man who has not the money.

Mr. Baird: I wish the hon. Gentleman would consult his hon. Friend the Member

for Luton (Dr. Hill), and ask him if that is the attitude of the medical profession towards their patients.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The position is wholly different in the case of the medical profession, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that if a doctor is making up his mind whether he will go into the State Health Service or remain outside it and treat private patients, he will say to himself, "Either way I shall be doing good and healing people. In either case their sensations are the same, and, therefore, the question before me is which career will pay me better." Of course, he will take into account such matters as whether the work is congenial, but if the work is the same in either case he will obviously come to that conclusion. It is a question which all ordinary men of ordinary standards and morals ask themselves.
We in this country, at the moment, have not enough dentists to carry out a completely free health service. If I may change the metaphor, we have not enough cloth to make ourselves trousers and a coat. We can either make a pair of trousers or a coat, but we cannot make the whole suit. If we try to make the whole suit we shall find ourselves faced with exactly the sort of disaster which our dental service is facing at present—extremely uncomfortable and a strong tendency to split in various places.
The proposal contained in the Regulations against which the hon. Member is praying is one which must command some degree of assent, for the reasons I have stated earlier in my speech. But, at best, it can be nothing more than a temporary expedient. It may achieve a lower average cost, a lower charge to the State in the immediate future, but it will hit the new entrants into the service harder perhaps than any other section of the dental service and, to that extent, it will tend to dry up recruitment.
In so far as it tends to stop large incomes being earned, it means that, in effect, it will deter dentists from working the present exceedingly long hours. That will lengthen the queues in dentists' waiting rooms. There will be greater inducement to dentists to turn over from the public service to private service. That is the inevitable result and, whatever one's views may be on the morality or otherwise of this question, it is a result


which I think we should all deplore on both sides of the House.
That must be the ultimate result. Although some reasonable reduction should be made, I hope the Government will be able to assure us this evening that this is a purely temporary measure, that they recognise the kind of objections I have sought to put before the House and that at the earliest date they will go over this question of dentists' emoluments with the greatest care and produce a new scheme. I believe it will have to be a much more fundamental change than we could discuss on these Regulations. If we cannot get an assurance of that sort, I should wish very much to consider my attitude to the hon. Member's Prayer.

6.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): As I listened to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) I at first thought we had him with us in desiring some reduction in the cost of the dental services. As he went on with his speech I was beginning to doubt that. I feel that the only logical conclusion to what he was saying was that the dental services section of the Health Service should be withdrawn. I do not know whether he does intend that. It was clearly at the back of his mind when he was saying that, in the earlier days of inauguration of this service, he himself, amongst others, had suggested that this particular element of the Health Service had been introduced too soon. Surely, the deduction from that is that this service was introduced too soon and possibly should now be withdrawn.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that I think the attempt to have a completely free health service was done much too soon, that it would have been possible to provide for the proper care of all the children in this country, for example, and that that would have been far better than to try to deal with a good many aspects of these services which could have waited until after the children had been dealt with properly.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not want to carry this forward too far. It is hardly fully applicable to this Prayer, but it is of importance that we should have on

record that the hon. Member does feel that apart from priority services—which I agree have suffered severely by the attraction of the other dental services—the rest of the service ought possibly to be withdrawn. I take it that is the intention of what the hon. Member has been saying.
Broadly speaking, there has been agreement on both sides of the House, probably including the hon. Member, that there ought to be further reduction in the cost of the dental services and that the figures now being earned by the dentists are higher on the average than that laid down by the Spens Report and higher than we can reasonably be expected to pay. The figures he quoted were quite accurate but, taking the average, it is true that something like £4,850 gross has been paid over the year 1949–50. As he said, even assuming that the proportion of expenses is at the rate of some 52 per cent., that leaves a figure of some £2,250 as against a figure of approximately £1,800 a year that was recommended in the Spens Report.
We have to take account of the fact that the Spens Report assumed a period of working which has been falsified by events. That is to say, it assumed a certain period of hours at the chair-side which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) said, is in fact being exceeded. But making some allowance for that, there is no doubt the figures now being paid must be further reviewed. The main question that has arisen in this short Debate is whether we are reviewing that high remuneration in the proper manner, and whether we are satisfied that the way to do it is by making this overall cut of 10 per cent.

Sir William Darling: The figures were a miscalculation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The figures submitted by the Spens Report—not by the Minister—assumed that there would be a certain period of time worked but, as is made clear by the Penman Report, and indeed made clear before that, that period of working has been falsified by the actual practice.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say he did imply that the figure of 33 chair-side


hours has been thrown overboard by the Government as the proper amount of time. If he does not mean that, would he make it clear?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I merely said it is clear from the Penman Report, as well as from other evidence, that 33 chair-side hours are not being worked.
The point arises as to the best method of securing a reasonable reduction in remuneration. As hon. Members know we made an overall cut of some 20 per cent., in effect, last year. It takes some time, of course, for that cut to be effective in actual payments to dentists and we must keep that in mind. One has to consider whether there is any other way of securing a reduction in the amounts being paid out to the dentist that would be fairer both to the dentists themselves and to the general public and would help to bring about a better dental service than we have at the present time.
I must make it clear at the very outset that there is really no question here of what might be called an arbitrary cut such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) suggested. In fact, there have been discussions with the dentists on this matter and we have made it clear that we are most anxious to have alternative proposals as to the way in which reductions could be obtained. But we did feel—and we expressed this quite clearly to them—that although we were anxious to have alternative proposals, this was not a matter which could be left for an indefinite time while alternative proposals were being worked out. We said this in a letter to the British Dental Association:
He"—
that is the Minister—
therefore proposes as interim action to reduce the amount paid on estimates for work undertaken after 30th April by 10 per cent., this reduction to be effected by deducting 10 per cent. from the aggregate total fees in respect of such work, in order to avoid disturbing the present scale of fees. The Minister is, however, prepared to consider substituting for this arrangement a scheme for a sliding scale of reductions applicable to higher earnings which would result in no less a saving, if and when a practicable scheme can be worked out to his satisfaction, with as he hopes the agreement of the profession, and he trusts he can count on the co-operation of the profession to this end.
That makes it quite clear that we are not putting forward this scheme as a final

proposal. We are most anxious at all times to consider any alternative proposals that may be put forward, but I must remind hon. Members that we have in the past attempted one form or another of ceiling to dental fees. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, prayed against that particular method of trying to secure economies in the expense of the dental service early last year.
Therefore, although this proposal for a sliding scale out is slightly different, we have to hear in mind our experiences when we imposed the ceiling last year, namely, that after earnings had reached a certain point there were some dentists who said "After this point in our earnings we are not going to take any more National Health Service patients; we are going to take private patients only." It was largely because of that fact that we agreed to replace that ceiling cut by the 20 per cent. overall cut that we made last year. In any proposals which are submitted to us for a sliding scale revision we have to consider whether or not it would have a similar effect.

Mr. Baird: If proposals for a sliding scale have been put forward or discussed, why have they not been carried into effect? Also, if these proposals have been put forward, how long will it take to come to a decision?

Mr. Blenkinsop: No detailed scheme has been submitted to us. Negotiations have been broken off by the dental profession. We would ask them most sincerely to come forward and make these alternative proposals to us. The sooner they do so the sooner we shall be able to introduce some other scheme. We are certainly not prepared to await such an alternative sliding scale scheme without taking some interim measures to secure effective reduction.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: In what circumstances were those negotiations broken off by the dentists? The feeling abroad is that although they put forward suggestions, they were met with a flat refusal.

Mr. Blenkinsop: No such suggestion has been put forward. It was merely that the dentists said that they felt some sliding scale scheme would be preferable to this overall cut. As I explained in the


quotation which I read from the letter which my right hon. Friend sent to the British Dental Association, we accepted that a sliding scale cut might be more effective and more helpful, and we shall certainly be quite willing to consider it, but we were not prepared to await the details of a scheme of that sort before taking action. It is perfectly clear that any proposal for cutting dental fees can only become effective over quite a considerable period of time. Therefore, the door is still open for negotiations and discussion should the dentists come forward with any further proposals.
A good deal has been said about this proportion of 52 per cent. for dentists' expenses. That is the figure that was accepted when the scheme was introduced. We are by no means satisfied that the 52 per cent. is accurate today—but not in the manner that my hon. Friend suggests. We feel that, in fact, 52 per cent. is today too high a figure, and that in considering the expenses ratio one has to keep in mind the volume of work that the dentists are undertaking.
A review is being carried out of the expenses ratio, into the actual amount of these expenses; earlier on it was carried out with the co-operation of the dentists, and now I am not so sure whether they are prepared to co-operate or not, but we are anxious to have their help in getting at the actual facts of what their expenses are. We hope that even now they will be willing to help us in what can only be of assistance to both sides, because we cannot work continuously upon some assumption as to what the figures are. It should be possible to get accurate figures which would help both sides in the negotiations. As I have said, that review is being carried out and should enable us to get more accurate information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-east, very properly suggested that savings might be effected by a more thorough supervision by the Ministry itself, in addition to any other method of cut. He pointed out quite properly that at the moment the Ministry establishment and the staff of examining officers are below the level that we should desire. That is perfectly true. It is also obviously true that the Dental Estimates

Board is limited in the amount of effective checking that it can carry out by the size of its staff. We are considering the point that he raised and we are hopeful that we shall be able to improve the effectiveness of the checking in future months.

Mr. Baird: Can my hon. Friend say what percentage of dental estimate cases are checked?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I cannot give the percentage. All I can do is to point out that quite a large number of cases come before the executive councils which originally had been investigated by Ministry of Health inspectors. For example, some 700 cases have been before the executive councils, and there is no doubt that the sort of disciplinary measures which are taken by the Ministry through the executive councils are very effective. All we want is to ensure that that is made still more effective by the improvement of our general staff. We cannot say precisely what saving could be effected by an increase in staff. Obviously that is quite impossible, but we are satisfied that it would be possible to obtain valuable savings in this way.
I do not think any further points were raised. We appreciate the interest of the House, and I think we also appreciate the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House desire above all to get the dental remuneration into fair balance with other professional bodies within the general Health Service, and also to do what we can to help to develop a proper standard of service for the general public. There is no doubt that there is a big field indeed in which the professional organisation itself can assist in effectively controlling its own members so as to ensure that a proper service is given—as, indeed, we have a right to expect, on the basis of the very adequate remuneration which is being paid.
I ask, therefore, that the Prayer shall be nullified by the House on the grounds that the cut we have imposed is an interim cut and that we are willing at all times to consider alternative proposals, but that immediate action must be taken to ensure more reasonable remuneration for dentists than the extravagant figures which have been paid.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: The Parliamentary Secretary reveals to us the


bankruptcy of the Minister, who has no ideas except that of making a flat cut, who admits that that is not satisfactory, admits that the dental service is not being paid in a way which gets the best out of the profession, who supposes it a good introduction to co-operation with the profession, a good piece of democratic planning, to impose this unilateral out and who then expects the dental profession to come back in a good frame of mind.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We have had quite a long history of negotiation with the dental profession, and it has not been a very happy one. I should like to know whether the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) thinks we ought to continue to pay these high fees.

Mr. Eccles: I shall tell the Parliamentary Secretary about that very shortly. I hope the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) will not take it personally if I say that dentistry is not an attractive profession. The dental surgeon is in much the same relation to other professional men as is the coalminer at the coal face to his fellow workers above ground in the factories. If we want to expand the labour force in a dirty industry—and spending a lifetime peering and picking in other people's mouths is not a clean job—we have to pay to attract recruits.
The basic fact about this situation, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), is that 10,000 dentists are nothing like enough to provide the nation-wide service which the Minister created at a stroke of the pen. Supposing that after the war His Majesty's Government had suddenly created a demand for 400 million tons of coal and had said to the coal industry, 'You can supply as much as you can get out of the ground to the customers you choose and the less time and the less trouble it takes no doubt will dictate where the coal goes." What chaos there would have been in the coal industry.
There is exactly the same chaos today in the dental industry. The demand has been probably doubled and, naturally, those who were there to supply the demand are nothing like sufficient, and to make matters worse this is a dirty industry

to which it is difficult to attract recruits. All this shows that the Minister was in far too much of a hurry when he brought in the National Health Service.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Both the hon. Members for Chippenham and his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) have talked about being in too much of a hurry. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore mean that he suggests that this service should be withdrawn?

Mr. Eccles: I shall not give way to the Parliamentary Secretary again. He has asked me two very silly questions, both of which I shall deal with in my speech. I say that the Minister was in too much of a hurry in view of the fact that his original estimate for the service in England and Wales was £7 million, was revised to £17 million, was £26 million in 1949, and then had to be revised to £40 million——

Mr. Speaker: We must not discuss the Supplementary Estimates of the Ministry of Health or the whole Health Service of the Ministry of Health. We are on a very limited point on this Prayer.

Mr. Eccles: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. We are on the point of cutting that estimate by 10 per cent., and I thought that perhaps I might mention the size of the figure. Of course, the proposed cut of 10 per cent. will do something to reduce the error of the Minister's financial estimates, but will it do anything to correct the errors in the service itself? By now the experience which we have had of the dental service is quite sufficient to make the Minister confess that the whole basis of his scheme is unworkable, and that he should take it away and produce another scheme.
How could we arrange, instead of cutting all round by 10 per cent.—as is proposed in the Regulations—to pay the 10,000 dentists in such a way as to get the best work out of them, to concentrate that work where it is most needed—which is not happening today—and also to attract an adequate supply of recruits to the profession? Those are the three principles which should determine the shape of the demand on the dental service at a time when the demand is so much greater than the existing profession can meet.

Mr. Mellish: Does the hon. Member suggest that there should be compulsory powers to deal with the dentists, to direct them into the right places at the right time?

Mr. Eccles: Nothing of the kind. Having stated what I believe to be the case, I will, if the hon. Member permits me, now look at this 10 per cent. cut. I suppose it will reduce the quantity of work done by the 10,000 dentists today. That is one of the aims. There will be a larger number of people waiting for treatment, a larger number of people who will never receive treatment, although they might be compensated by the fact that those who do have treatment may receive rather better quality treatment. It will certainly have the effect, however, of reducing the output of the 10,000 dentists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because if it is to be less attractive to work longer hours—and we are told that the people who have to be discouraged are those who put in such long hours that they do slipshod work at the end of the day—then these people will not work such long hours but perhaps they will do rather better work. At least, that will be the case if these Regulations are successful. These people will not treat so many patients.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member's argument is completely opposite to that of some of his hon. Friends. They have been arguing that as a result of this cut, dentists would be encouraged to work even longer hours and the danger might be that it would reduce the standard of work. That is the argument which we have been hearing.

Mr. Eccles: I think that was the argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird). It may be so—it may be that there are some dentists who, if the rate is cut, will do more and more work, but I doubt that very much. I think it is more likely that under schemes of this sort, and also under the scheme of a graduated cut which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East proposed, a good many dentists will say, "A game of golf for me"; and that, when his income reaches a certain point—as happens with certain other highly-taxed persons in other branches of the medical profession—he will not do more

work. Such people will choose leisure at the week-ends, when these Regulations do not pay them to work.
Will this cut mean that more of whatever work is done by the 10,000 dentists will be done among the priority classes? It would be of advantage if the children received a little more attention and the adults a little less. I should not like to express an opinion one way or the other; I do not know enough about it. But I suspect that after this cut the hourly rate of earnings of a school dentist, allowing for the fact that he works much shorter hours and receives certain allowances such as, perhaps, a car allowance, may not be very much different from the hourly rate of the average dentist in the service. If we could now make a calculation of what the school dentists earn in a session and compare it with the nett income of a dentist in the service of adults I should doubt if the difference is so enormous as is often thought. It may be that this cut may persuade a certain number of the older men to go back into the school dental service, but I am not satisfied with just saying that it may. Steps ought to be taken to see that that does occur. I do not think the Minister is right to leave to the chance operation of this new scale of payments the bringing about what, I think, the whole House would desire.

Mr. Baird: This is a most important point. There are two ways of getting more school dentists. One is to reduce the salaries of dentists in general practice to the level of those in the school dental service, and the other is to raise the salaries of the dentists in the school service to the incomes of the dentists in general practice.

Mr. Eccles: A little later I shall say what I would do about that, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will let me approach things in order. The third question to ask is whether or not the cut will attract more recruits. Of course, it will not. As we lower the emoluments of a profession we naturally decrease the number of young men and women willing to enter that profession, in comparison with the numbers entering other professions. Furthermore, when the paymaster, the Minister of Health, is from time to time slamming cuts on a profession, without negotiations, it naturally destroys the confidence of the young people, and


deters them from coming into a profession where there is an employer of that—I should say—thoroughly unwelcome type of character.
I wondered whether an hon. Member—I think it was an hon. Friend of mine on this side of the House—was right when he said that the emoluments are "all haywire" compared with the emoluments of other members of the medical profession. I do not see how one can make a judgment like that straight off without asking whether it is more important that more young people should be attracted to be dentists or to be general practitioners. In this world the relative attractions of taking up two different types of medicine will be weighed up by young people. For all I know, from the point of view of the health of the nation—I do not pretend to be an expert—it may be more important to have 1,000 more dentists than 1,000 more general practitioners, but to say that the rewards are all haywire without considerations of that sort does not, to my mind, make much sense.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), made two suggestions. First, he said that millions of pounds could be saved if there were more "snoopers"—more inspectors—who went round each day to look at the estimates of the profession. "Millions of pounds," he said. He must have a very low view about his own profession, because, obviously, if millions of pounds are today being wrongly paid out it means that there is fraud on a colossal scale by members of his own profession.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: "A dirty industry."

Mr. Eccles: I do not take the hon. and gallant Member's view.

Mr. Baird: I could give examples of how savings could be made. I believe the Minister had some figures of a number of cases—something like 0.2 of 1 per cent.—and that the saving last year was something like £500,000.

Mr. Eccles: In so far as the hon. Gentleman says there would be millions of pounds saved by a closer inspection he is saying that there are millions of pounds fraudulently obtained in the service today.

Mr. Baird: This is a most important point. It is a matter of clinical judgment,

and not all dentists have the same clinical opinion as the Ministry of Health inspector. This is a way in which money can be saved. Let me give an example. A dentist prescribed two jacket crowns which cost about £20, and the estimate was passed. A fortnight later the dentist put in another estimate for the extraction of teeth and the fitting of a denture. That was passed, too. Since the jacket crowns were unnecessary, £20 would have been saved if there had been prior supervision.

Mr. Eccles: What an honourable profession it must be if every single case of treatment has to be inspected by some other dentist—by a man who has for some time enjoyed a secure job in the Ministry of Health. I should prefer to trust to the general standards of the profession rather than call on men who had failed at the chair and went to the Ministry, to go round teaching other people how to do work they could not do themselves.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not think the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to make statements of that sort, that are quite uncalled for and cannot be replied to by the people on whom he is casting a slur.

Mr. Eccles: I am entitled to say that there are now 22 of these inspectors who, presumably, must have been dentists themselves. The proposition of the hon. Member behind the Minister is that that number should be very largely increased. Where from? From the dentists who are now employed in their profession and now turn over to the work of inspection? No, Sir, we had too much of that in the agricultural industry.
The second proposition of the hon. Member was this graduated scale, which, of course, is a kind of Surtax: the more one earns the less one keeps of each succeeding £100. I would leave that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that in medical practice or any other professional occupation we can say, "We do not think it is right that a man should earn more than a certain amount." There are enormous differences between the inefficient and the efficient. I imagine that a dentist can organise himself and have several assistants—six or seven, nine or ten. He may be served by a nurse-secretary who is extremely able at controlling the flow of work. There may be a team


—a sort of small clinic. Why should the man at the top who organises that not go on doing that sort of thing, which is greatly to the benefit of the public? "Oh, no," says the hon. Gentleman opposite, "if he earns more than a certain amount, no matter how clever he is, no matter how efficiently he organises his surgery, or how many assistants he has, he must stop."
That is not the way to make progress in any profession or in any business. We should allow people to have a chance to go as far as their capacity will carry them. If it be said "Oh, but the standards in the dental profession are so low, their morals are not very high, they are not very conscientious, they do slipshod work" one asks: Why do they do it? Because the status of the profession was never high enough in the past. How can we get the status higher but by having some plums at the top so that the man who succeeds can earn as much in that profession as he could, say, in any other branch of surgery? And why not?

Mr. Blenkinsop: He can.

Mr. Eccles: The proposition of the hon. Gentleman is to put a special tax upon anyone earning more than a few thousand a year, as though we said to the greatest surgeon in Harley Street, "If you do 20 operations you will get so much each, but if you do 21, then for the twenty-first operation you will get less than for the 20." That is a nonsensical way of organising the dental profession.

Mr. Baird: I have no brief for the British Dental Association, but the suggestion I put forward, the sliding scale, is, I believe, the proposal of the Association itself, which thinks it should prevent dentists from making very high incomes.

Mr. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman brought this forward as his own proposal and I credited him with having some ideas. I was wrong.
The truth of the matter is that the Minister should confess that he has not got enough dentists for a national service. Therefore, what he ought to do is to take away this system of paying the 10,000 dentists on the piece rate as it is now, and then select carefully the priority classes in the country for whom it is important, in everyone's interest, that

treatment should be given—and I assume the House would agree that that was the children, and then expectant mothers—and firm steps should be taken to see that they are the first charge upon the profession as it is today.
Whether that could be done by making the service free up to the age of 18 and for expectant mothers, and then making adults pay something over and above that, I do not know. But it is up to the Minister to make a radical change in the whole dental service, because, at the moment, by his bad administration he is not only over-straining the dentists we have, but by his method of payment he is diverting their services from those who need them most. That really is not in the national interest, and simply to come here with the old bankrupt practice of a 10 per cent. cut for everybody—which, I believe, will do nothing for the expectant mothers, and precious little for the children—only shows what we all know on this side of the House, that we need a new Minister of Health and a recasting of the whole of this service.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: As a rule we listen with interest to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) because he usually puts forward a reasoned case which he has, presumably, thought out with some care. This evening, however, he rather destroyed the strength of his own argument by putting forward an unnecessarily exaggerated case. I think, too, that to cast aspersions on the profession in the way he did is not helpful to this Debate, particularly when he pours scorn on some aspects of the scheme which he describes by saying that it is dirty and unattractive work. It may be in some respects restrictive, as viewed by some people, though there is no shadow of doubt that in the main dentists are trying to do an honest job of work, and trying to give a reasonable public service.
We must admit that when any schemes are started difficulties are bound to arise. We should make due allowances for those difficulties and try to be more helpful in the suggestions we make, rather than cast these sorts of aspersions about wildly. The analogy the hon. Gentleman used was particularly unhappy when he suggested that a dentist working on the face of his patient was like a coal miner


working at the coal face. I do not think that will be very well received in his constituency.
The Minister's real problem, as I see it, is that he is faced with the rather difficult task of effecting a reasonable balance between the total costs of the service to the public, the quality of the work—which of course, is extremely important—and the quantity of work that is done. If the total costs to the public have seemed excessive it has probably done nothing more than show the enormous amount of blacklog of work that there was under the old rather ineffective system, and we should pay due regard to that fact. On the other hand, we can see the difficulties which confronted the Minister when accounts started to pile up and the newspapers got hold of a few isolated cases where excessive fees seemed to be earned by certain dentists by streamlining their work, so that he probably had to act rather quickly.
I am inclined to think that he acted a little precipitately because there were at that time, I understand, certain negotiations in hand, and I think it would have been better if the Minister could have produced amongst the dentists right from the start the impression that he was trying to co-operate with them to the utmost extent, because by his trying to be cooperative he could have reasonably expected co-operation from the dentists. The description of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), of negotiations being broken off, simply indicates that the Minister perhaps did act in a way which was not best calculated to get the co-operation of the dentists that he might have got otherwise.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend suggest we should wait indefinitely for proposals instead of instituting this interim cut?

Mr. Cooper: I do in this respect. I understand—I am subject to correction on this—that negotiations were in hand, and that undue delays were not blamed on the professional negotiators, and I therefore think that if the Minister had held his hand for a short time he would probably have got an answer quite quickly.
The important thing in any negotiations—and this applies whether they are negotiations in industry or in professional

matters of this type—is that when a rate has been fixed and later the basis of the rate is found to be inappropriate, suddenly to make cuts is the sort of thing which causes a tremendous amount of bad feeling. That is one of the chief complaints made by trade union officials who negotiate on behalf of workers in industry. When an industrialist suddenly cuts the rate he destroys any confidence that there may be between the workers and the industrialist. I believe that the Minister should try to avoid any suggestion of that sort. Of course, it may not be true. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already spoken, it may be that later on with the leave of the House he might perhaps be able to comment on that. If he could destroy that impression which has been created amongst dentists, it might give greater hope for the future of any negotiations undertaken later on.
Undoubtedly, in many cases the earnings were high, and it may be that some of the work was scamped, but I believe that was in only a comparatively few cases. I think that the high rate of earnings has been due, on the whole, to dentists putting in an excessive amount of work. They did it in the public interest, and it is therefore unhelpful if immediately, or at an early date, they are penalised for putting in that extra work. It is an indication of their desire to do the right thing. Their suggestion to look at their Income Tax returns to see what their rates of earnings were was a decent gesture. Moreover, when the question of the expenses ratio was under consideration the method of analysing a number of Income Tax returns would have been a very fair way for the Minister to obtain the essential information he required.

Mr. Daines: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Income Tax returns of dentists, as a whole, are complete and show all their earnings?

Mr. Cooper: That is a very interesting point, because the system is so arranged that they cannot be paid out of public funds except against actual certificates which they send in. It is therefore known officially exactly what they are earning.

Mr. Daines: I take it that my hon. Friend is supporting the Prayer of the


hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird). Perhaps he would go for further sources of information to the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, when we discussed this matter before.

Mr. Cooper: I will certainly make reference to that, but as I understand the position now dentists can get no fees from public sources unless they render a return of what they have done, and those returns are also available for the Income Tax officials. At least the money they get from public sources is therefore well known, and that is the principal matter we are considering this evening—the money they are paid out of public funds.
The important thing I wish to refer to is the question of quality. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, is right when he suggests that there should be a slight increase in the number of inspectors. That is not to say, as the hon. Member for Chippenham said, that every case must go before an inspector; but when there is a sufficient number of inspectors available special cases which are brought to their notice can be examined with a reasonable chance of there being not too much delay. I believe that would tend to encourage throughout the profession a higher standard of work, and would therefore tend to some extent to reduce the total amount of earnings.
I believe that if we try to cut down the expenses ratio to too great an extent, it will tend to discourage the high quality of work being done in the dental workshops, and I believe that the Minister is anxious to avoid any deterioration in the quality of the work. However, may I suggest to the Minister that, at an early date, he looks at the sliding-scales proposed by the British Dental Association, because I think he will find that the suggestions are reasonable and also meet with the general approval of the dental profession.
I think that the arbitrary imposition of a 10 per cent. cut in this way is not going to achieve his purpose. It is bound to go against the effective working of the dental scheme by making the dentists less co-operative. We have to take into account the conditions at long-term which will encourage good men to come forward

and take part in the scheme; otherwise it will break down and will be to the public disadvantage.
We have also to prevent, as suggested by the hon. Member for Chippenham, the complete elimination of the possibility of good salaries for exceptionally good work. It is something taken into account in the case of the Health Scheme as applying to doctors, and I do not think that dentists should be excluded from these exceptional prizes if they can justify their claim. I would ask the Minister to have another look at this 10 per cent. to see whether he is justified in making the cut at this time. I think that if he were to delay a little, he would find the dentists completely co-operative.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I am afraid that I regard the Regulations before the House tonight as a stride, and a long stride, down the road to utility dentistry which the profession has been forced to enter upon in these last two years. When we look at the background of the Regulations, we have, first, the Spens Committee report. Fortunately, that ground has been adequately covered by Members on both sides of the House and I need not review it again. There are however one or two small points which, I think, should be made.
It is, first of all, well within our minds that the Spens Committee concentrated their inquiries on the age group 35–54, and that 50 per cent. of that age group were, pre-war, earning less than £700 a year in terms of gross personal income. The recommendation of the Spens Committee was that the figure should be increased to £1,100, and then they recommended the £1,600 which has been the subject of discussion tonight. The most important thing to remember about the Spens Committee Report is that it was never intended, and it was never said in the Report, that every dentist should be able to earn that sum. They were discussing a particular age group and dentists with particular qualifications; it was never in their contemplation that we should be able to read, as we can now almost every day in "The Times" and "Daily Telegraph" advertisements—I saw one the day before yesterday:


Assistant dental surgeon required. Salary £1,300 a year plus substantial bonus plus car plus residence.
That means that the most newly-qualified dental surgeon starts at a figure considerably in excess of the Spens recommendation. We must remember that when we talk about 10,000 dentists taking, on an average, last year, £4,800 in public money, the figures include assistants and also all those who for various reasons, perhaps because of age or other circumstances, did not do the full amount of work. Therefore, the sums that are being earned by the people in that age group are very considerably higher than the Spens estimate.
These Regulations arise because, in the opinion of the Government—and I agree with them—too much public money is being spent on the dental service. It has been the complaint of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, in Debate after Debate, "How could we know that this would be the amount of money that would have to be paid out in the dental service?" I would like to remind him, because it has not arisen today, that we on this side of the House knew, and said, nearly two years ago, what the cost of this scheme would be, and we have been proved right.
I would like to read to the House what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) on 16th September, 1948, which was a few weeks after the scheme started:
As for the dental scheme, the Treasury after the Spens award, said that the total annual cost would be £27 million, and we are now told that there are something like 30,000 requests a day being made to the Estimate Board at Eastbourne for dental benefit of one sort or another. So much the better if we can afford it, but the total cost is not, as stated originally, £27 million but likely to be between £50 million and £60 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th September, 1948; Vol. 456, c. 242–3.]
Taking into account the cuts last year, my right hon. Friend was right. The Government have not yet discovered what the final cost of the scheme is to be.
The Parliamentary Secretary said, quite rightly in my view, that one of the most important points to consider in dental remuneration was the expenses ratio. I agree with him and not with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird). Even today, an expenses ratio of 52 per cent. is too high, and after these cuts it will still be too high. It is

obvious that the expenses ratio does not continue to rise rapidly as the number of patients increase. Factors like rent equipment and other things remain stationary, but I believe that when the cut is made, 52 per cent. will still be too high. It has been said over and over again from this side of the House that the basic fact to consider in looking at the dental service is that there are not enough dentists to run the service.
In 1946, when we started this scheme—the beginning of the story which has led to these Regulations—the Minister knew that perfectly well. The Minister told the House:
We have not enough dentists and it will therefore be necessary for us, in the meantime, to give priority treatment to certain classes—expectant and nursing mothers, children, school children in particular and later on, we hope, adolescents. Finally, we trust that we shall be able to build up a dental service for the whole population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 45.]
On the Second Reading, in 1946, the Minister knew where we were going. When this matter of dental costs was discussed in the Committee he used these words:
… when the State is making certain things universal and free it has to make up its mind at what point it stops. If it provided everything freely, the answer would at once be that the whole scheme would soon break down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; 26th June; Vol. 46, c. 1793.]
I agree. We agreed with him in 1946, and we agree with him today. But he has changed his point of view. These things which I have quoted are two years before the scheme came into effect. They were two years of difficult negotiations with the British Dental Association. The Government "raised the ante" and blinded the profession with gold. If I may change the metaphor, the carrot is being pulled into the wings, now that the dentists are in the profession.
The Minister can come before the House with another cut, and another, with the sweet simplicity of the 10 per cent. This is not the last cut which the dental profession is to suffer. The situation that has been created by dental remuneration will not be profoundly affected by these Regulations. The Minister has created a paradise for the "spiv" dentists who see in this scheme an attractive incentive to quick and shoddy work and the use of shoddy material.
The good professional dentist, who is the backbone of the profession and in the vast majority, has welcomed, of course, the financial improvement to his position which this scheme has brought about, but he loathes and detests the contempt in which the public hold this honoured profession. Dentists hate not being able to go to the golf club without someone saying "Here is a man earning £100 a day," and then he turns on the wireless he finds he is the butt of every cheap comedian. Something should be done to remove this impression.
We have had a scheme put forward by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, which, in fact, is the British Dental Association's scheme, as an alternative to this 10 per cent. cut. I must say that I find the scheme a little naïve. If I remember rightly, they had another scheme last year to evade the cuts that were then being made. I should have found it much more convincing if they had come forward at their own will with their suggestions and proposals before any cuts were proposed.
I would rather see their efforts concentrated on the ethical side of dentistry. I think a tremendous amount could be done here. When the cuts were made last year, there was a letter in the "Daily Telegraph" from two dental surgeons to the effect that if these cuts went through Parliament, they would earn their Spens maxima in two-and-a-half days and play golf for the rest of the week. I have not the quotation with me, but it is in my personal files. I thought it one of the most disgraceful things I have ever seen in print coming from professional men. However, we are not discussing the ethics of this side of the House or the other side, but those of the dental profession. What matters is how they will regard these cuts, and I have given an example.
Last year, at the Labour Party Conference, which was held at one of the watering places we all go to for our conferences, the Minister of Health said that priorities were a religion to Socialists. But just look at what happens to Socialism in practice. Let us try for a moment to see what has happened. The answer I would give is contained in a first-class report, with which I am sure most of those who have spoken in this Debate will be familiar, namely, "The Practitioner."

In reviewing the first year's working of the National Health Act, this is what it has to say about dentistry:
The virtual breakdown of the School Dental Service, and with it of the maternity and child welfare dental services, all of which were earmarked as No. I priorities, is regarded by the whole profession as the greatest and most tragic failure of the new Health Service. Although it may be politically expedient, it is nevertheless scientifically wrong, as well as economically unsound, to provide dentures for octogenarians while allowing the teeth of the rising generation to be neglected.
That is precisely my view. I believe that we have got thus far with the scheme, because it is politically expedient.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out that this is a very limited subject, and that the dental service as a whole is not the question now before us.

Mr. MacLeod: Let me conclude, then, by saying this: I believe, as has been said so often, that these Regulations are not setting about this very serious problem in the right way. If we accept the basic fact that there are not enough dentists, and if that was admitted in 1946 by Members opposite, then let us consider the real implications. It merely shows immaturity to suggest a scheme for the whole population with inadequate resources. What we have to do is again to restate the priority classes in dentistry, and to see that they get priority. There are many ways to do this, apart from the over-simplified method suggested tonight We must try to get the co-operation of the dentists, or even make it a condition of service, with regard to the British Dental Association scheme. This sort of miserable tinkering with dental remuneration is not the way to secure a happy profession, nor is it the way to give a good service to the people.

7.35 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I want briefly to comment on one aspect of the problem. The essence of what we have been discussing tonight is how best and most effectively an economy can be made, bearing in mind that the mode of remuneration, and so the mode of effecting the economy, has, or can have, an effect on the working of the service. Emphasis has been laid on the fact that there are too few dentists to provide a comprehensive service. That being so, it is for the Government to answer the question: Is it desired that dentists should seek to


provide a comprehensive service? There being too few dentists, it can be provided only by their working long hours and at considerable speed. I am now speaking of the average picture.
If it be true that there are too few dentists working ordinary hours to provide a comprehensive service, and in the light of the Government's statement that a comprehensive service is available to the community, is it the desire of the Government that the dental profession, with whatever consequences may flow from it, should seek by working longer, harder and speedier to provide the comprehensive service? It seems to me that this difficulty of cost arises because remuneration has been arranged in the past on the assumption of a reasonable week's work at a reasonable pace. In order to deliver the goods to the people, the dental profession has had to work longer and quicker than is reasonable, with here and there a lowering in the quality of the service.
If it is the Government's policy that the dentists should seek to provide a comprehensive service, then that factor must be taken into account in relation to the proposal to cut the remuneration. What will be the effect of the 10 per cent. cut? It may well be, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) has suggested, in many cases to speed up the pace of the work to earn the same money. What is it the Government want? Do they want an attempt made, whatever may happen here and there by way of excessive work and to provide the promised comprehensive service for the whole of the community? If not, if the Government are seeking to maintain, as I believe they are, a good quality of dental work, the question has to be answered: Which group is to be left out, and which group is not to have the comprehensive dental service that was promised?
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Ian MacLeod) has pointed out that in fact there has been no priority policy. There has been no attempt to answer the question of which group shall be left out or which group shall come first, with the result that the groups which were promised priority are the last of all to get it, notably children and mothers. The method the Government adopt will have a bearing on the character of the service which results. A

suggestion has been made that the full rate of remuneration should continue on a certain level with proportionate reductions in it above that level.
My main criticism of that is that it does nothing to deal with the priority problem—to decide who shall come first within this limited service. It might not be impossible, if that be the method followed to exempt remuneration received from local health authorities for school dental work from the operation of the maximum or by separating from a maximum limitation scheme certain kinds of work which is done for priority groups like school children and nursing and expectant mothers.
I urge the Government in the reconstruction of this scheme, which they appear willing to make if the proposals are forthcoming from the dentists as I know they will be, to do their best to utilise the scheme of remuneration in any modified form in order to do something to meet the priority position. As it stands at the moment, the proposed method will penalise the dentist who has been working at his usual pace and with reasonable efficiency. It might have the effect of quickening his pace. But I believe that the Government have sooner or later to face up to the fact that if there are too few dentists to provide this service then they must themselves decide who is to come last or at least who has to come first.
What I think is to be most regretted about the Regulation is that it does nothing to meet what is the real position, and that it ignores the possibility of a mode of remuneration directing the attention of the profession to the work which in the public interest most needs to be done. I hope the Government will not seek to continue to put off this main issue. If, on the other hand, the Government prefer the work to be done well, let them as an act of deliberate policy, determine who is to come first, and secure that priority groups and genuine cases shall have priority.

Dr. Morgan: It seems to me that throughout the whole of his speech, the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) was moving towards the theory that priority work as laid down should be paid at a higher rate than ordinary treatment to ordinary people. Would he say whether that is so or not?

Dr. Hill: I had in mind that if there are to be rates of remuneration which are different above and below a particular line, as was outlined by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, it would not be unreasonable to exempt work done for defined priority classes from the operation of that maximum. All I am anxious to secure is that somehow or other those priority groups will receive the priority they need.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have learned a lot from this Debate. For example, I learned from the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), that the most sensitive profession in the world is that if the dentists. The main lesson to be learned from this Debate is that the Government did not go the whole hog at the beginning and nationalise the profession completely. I do not for one moment subscribe to the professional syndicalism that has been advocated in this Debate by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). We have heard too much about remuneration and to little about real service to the public, which should be the dominating object of every one in this profession. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) came out with a long and elaborate piece of casuistry in which he asked us to support the theory that the dental profession were justified in holding up the community to ransom. One of the arguments he used was that the dentists deserved more for what he called "dirty work." If that argument is to prevail it should apply to all branches of the medical profession——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Whether it is dirty work or not, the cut is only 10 per cent. over all.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The point should be cleared up. The hon. Member for Chippenham argued that this 10 per cent. reduction was unjustified because of the "dirty work" perpetrated by the dentists. It was only my purpose to ask the hon. Member for Chippenham or some other Members of the Opposition to justify the argument opposing the 10 per cent. reduction.
Objection has been taken to the dentists being pilloried on the wireless and in the music hall, and we have heard a request tonight to make dentists a privileged profession. The profession

I represent here, that of coal mining, has to put up with all sorts of cracks and jokes about dirty coal, which are a slander on the mining profession. Not only are these music hall jokes, but at Question time in this House the matter of dirty coal has become a common joke. The dentists, therefore, ought not to be so sensitive, but ought to be prepared to take their share of social criticism as well as other people who do dirty work in the country. If we are to base the argument for a 10 per cent. cut in remuneration on the grounds that a certain profession is a "dirty" profession, where are we going to end? We can immediately blackball the medical profession as a dirty profession, and I do not know what epithet should be applied to the legal profession. All the professions could say to this House, "We are entitled to increased remuneration, because we are the dirtiest of the lot."
We have had too much special pleading for a particular profession during this Debate. The hairdressers might as well argue that they are entitled to as much remuneration as the dentists. The professions could come here and say that they would accept this idea instead of the idea of social service, which should be the ethical basis of all professions. I believe the opinion is widely held that dentists have done very well out of this Act. I hope that the time will come when the Minister will do the necessary extraction and grasp the nettle, and will nationalise the profession, in the interests of the general public and of the dentists themselves.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Baird: I believe that, as the mover of the Motion, I have the privilege of replying. I want to speak only for a few minutes. There has been a dearth of ideas on both sides of the House today about how to solve the problem. I think that we shall not solve it until we have a fully salaried dental profession. The sooner that both sides of the House realise the truth of that statement the better it will be for the public and for the profession—but that has nothing to do with the 10 per cent. cut.
The proposed cut will not solve the problem of the school and other priority dental services. The British Dental Association have put forward proposals and they have argued about them. They are


divided about 50–50 on them. The school dentists say that their branch of the profession is specialised and that the general dental practitioner is not always qualified to treat young children. It would be wrong for the House to get the idea from the speeches that have been made that the question of the priority classes can be easily answered.
Another point which has been raised is that there are too few dentists. It is true that, just before the Act was passed, hon. Members opposite and the British Dental Association argued that there were not enough, but there were not too few dentists in 1938, at which time a patient could go from one dentist to another if he failed to get satisfactory treatment. If there are too few dentists today, what do hon. Gentlemen suggest? That we should abolish free dental treatment for the general public and concentrate upon school dentistry? There was a shortage of dentists before the National Health Act was passed, when only those who could afford to pay for conservative dentistry could get it.

Dr. Hill: Is it not a fact that before the war, in the dental profession alone among all professions, the wastage exceeded the entrants? I only desire to make the point that for some years there has been a most unusual position in the profession of dentistry, in that before the war there were fewer entrants to the profession than there were of people who left it.

Mr. Baird: I agree that before the war the profession was as remunerative as it is today, but many people could not afford to pay for dental treatment. Today there is a much bigger demand for dental treatment, and that is the reason for the shortage. If we were to institute a grant-in-aid system, as hon. Members have suggested, we should simply go back to the bad old days when people who could afford to get the treatment would have it and the working-class people would be unable to get it. The Health Service Act has raised the general health of the people. Young people who were in the Forces got to know the value of conservative treatment there, where they got it free. They are now coming into our surgeries. I start at 8 o'clock in the morning, and young people come in before they go to the office. A retrograde step such as is suggested

by hon. Members opposite, would undo much of the good work that has been done.
I suggested that we might save more money by more supervision. I am sorry that the Minister did not reply to me on that point. I have raised that point three time now in this House. I believe it is a method whereby we could save three, four, or five million pounds. I cannot calculate the exact amount, but it would be millions. I have had no indication that the Minister has even looked at the suggestion. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) said that more supervision would mean more "snoopers," but it would also mean that the people of this country would have a guarantee of getting value for their money.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I thought I had made it clear that we are very sympathetic indeed to the point regarding adequate supervision and that we are taking steps to overcome the difficulty.

Mr. Baird: If we are to do it, we must have some control over public expenditure and we can only get that by supervision. The public dental officers soon get to know who are the "spivs" in the profession. If we had more supervision we could concentrate on those dentists who we knew were acting in a "spivish" manner. The House must look at this question of supervision as a method of saving public money.
I believe there is a change of heart in the dental profession today. For a long while their attitude to the question was political. They were trying to exploit the situation for political ends. That stage in their history has gone. I believe dentists realise the error of their ways and I believe that if we had a gesture from the Ministry today the dental profession would welcome the opportunity of entering into negotiations again. I am speaking purely for myself. I have no brief for the British Dental Association. I believe that the time has come to try to break the deadlock; in that effort the profession and the Ministry both have a part to play. We shall not do that simply by imposing arbitrary cuts. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWN, BASILDON (FREEHOLDERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kenneth Robinson.]

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Braine: I apologise for detaining the House, but I wish to raise a matter which closely concerns the rights and the feelings of many thousands of freeholders who live in the area designated for the new town of Basildon, which covers the small townships of Laindon, and Pitsea and a scattered rural area called Basildon. I must make it plain at the outset that I am not opposed to the principle of new towns as such. I recognise that it is necessary in these days to decentralise large, sprawling urban communities.
The Basildon project, to which the former Minister of Town and Country Planning gave his blessing somewhat reluctantly, is unique among new towns for three reasons. Firstly, the area designated is very much larger than any other new town. It is larger than two other new towns put together. It comprises some 7,800 acres against 2,340 acres for Hatfield, 2,350 for Peterlee, 5,920 for Crawley, and just over 6,000 for Harlow. Secondly, Basildon has a much larger population already resident in the area. It has 25,000 or more people living there as against 160 in Harlow, 200 in Peterlee and 8,000 in Crawley and Hatfield. The figures are interesting, because the previous Minister always assumed that there were only some 17,000 people in the area. Goodness knows, that was large enough. I have had a careful check made, and I am satisfied that there are some 25,750 people living in the designated area.
It is interesting to note, in passing, that I asked the present Minister a Question on 9th May as to how many freeholders there were in the area. I wanted to know so that I could find out how many people were likely to be affected by the scheme, adversely or otherwise. He replied that he did not know, and that the information was not worth the trouble of finding out. I hardly expected him to know when his Ministry did not know the total number of people living in the area whom they were proposing to disturb by this project.
The third reason why this new town is unique among new towns is that a very high proportion indeed of the people already living in the area live rent free on their own freehold land. I quite agree that the area as a whole is in need of development, that there are miles and miles of unmade roads and that there are some sub-standard and unsightly properties; but it is also true that if a new town is to be planted down in this area in exactly the same way as other new towns are being put down elsewhere in the country, it cannot avoid hurting a very large number of people, causing grave hardship and even acute distress and leaving behind it a trail of bitterness and resentment.
These freeholders—I have spent the last four years cultivating their acquaintance; that is one of the reasons why I am here—are, almost without exception, people of slender means owning comparatively small plots of land. In many cases their homes are the result of the labour of their own hands. These people came from the East End of London and from metropolitan Essex in the 'twenties, and they built their own homes during the week-ends. In all cases their property represents a lifetime of abstainence and thrift, qualities which are not exactly encouraged today but without which the State would very quickly fall into decay. Large numbers of these people are pensioners who, if dispossessed, would find it impossible to obtain for themselves another freehold house elsewhere and would find it quite impossible to pay an economic rent. One has only to see the fantastically high rents charged for new houses now being erected in other new towns to see what an enormous financial burden would be placed on the community if large numbers of these people were re-housed, as they would have to be if they were dispossessed.
The point I want to make at the outset of my remarks is that, whatever their means, these people possess something of infinite value to themselves. They possess their homes, and freeholds, their pride and self-reliance. Few, if any, of them wish to live in a council house subsidised by their neighbours. All of them are proud to own their own plot of English soil.
When the new town was first mooted there was no great objection to it in the


area. Many people felt that it was a good thing, that it would speed the development of the area as a whole and that nobody would lose his home or his land except in cases where it was obviously necessary to acquire land to lay down new roads and to carry out other works. When the full implications of the new town began to dawn upon them there was a great public outcry. It was to allay the growing anxiety in the area that the late Minister of Town and Country Planning, Mr. Silkin, came down to Laindon. To use his own words, he "invited himself to address a public meeting." This is what he said:
I have heard that there was a feeling of uneasiness, very natural and understandable"—
How natural and understandable I shall show in a minute—
among the people of Laindon and Pitsea, and I felt that a great responsibility rested upon me. I have no desire whatever to inflict injury or harm on anybody in the course of carrying out the proposals I have in mind. There may be some misunderstanding, and I may be able to deal with certain matters and put your minds at ease.
By a very happy coincidence I was present at that meeting, and I can testify that the Minister said nothing at all to dispel the misunderstanding and doubt which existed in the area. On the contrary, he made it crystal clear that it was the intention of the Government to vest all freeholds in the area ultimately in the local authority. He left the district seething with fear and discontent, and since that date the Ministry's spokesmen, far from clearing the matter up, have added fuel to the fire and added to the doubt and uncertainty.
For example, at a public inquiry which was held in October, 1948, to hear objections to the scheme a Mr. Phillips, who was the Minister's representative, gave certain categorical assurances. I have here a copy of the report of the inquiry, on page 52 of which Mr. Phillips is reported as saying that where property was not required by the development corporation and it fitted into the development plan the owner would be left with the freehold. That was fair enough, and a number of people who heard that statement heaved a great sigh of relief. Mr. Phillips went further and told one man that if he owned land which the corporation did not want to acquire and if the land was in an area in which the

development corporation for the new town did not want to build houses, he would be free to build his own house, and Mr. Phillips added that the man could possess the freehold.
These observations at the public inquiry had the effect of allaying to some extent the uneasiness which prevailed in the area until after the Minister had signed the Order designating some 7,800 acres of the urban districts of Billericay and Laindon for the purpose of establishing a new town. As a result of the Order the Basildon New Town Corporation came into being, and in June of last year Sir Lancelot Kaye, a distinguished architect, was appointed its first chairman. But this gentleman does not really know much about the people in Basildon as I shall presently show.
In June, 1949, at a public meeting in Pitsea, Sir Lancelot dropped a bomb when he said that it was the Government's intention to vest all freeholds in the area in the local authority. As might be expected—particularly after the reassurances that had been given at the public inquiry—this produced the most violent reaction. Sir Lancelot was told in unmistakable fashion by one man, "We might just as well have Hitler here." Another man jumped up and asked him if this was justice after fighting for his stake in the country for the last six years. I believe that the intensity of the local feeling, which it is difficult for me to convey to the House, was expressed most eloquently by the wife of a labourer who spoke at the public inquiry. This is what she said:
We have a tiny bungalow and just a small piece of land, and we have struggled for 15 years to get that. We do not feel anybody has a right to take it from us. It is our life. It is ours. I do not care; nobody has got the moral right to take what we have had such a struggle to get. Nobody is going to take it from us without a fight.
Since Sir Lancelot Kaye's bombshell the General Election has taken place, and to clear the air I put down two Questions to the Minister on 18th April. He was kind enough to answer the first, but to the second—which was whether he would leave in possession of their freehold rights all freeholders whose land and buildings will remain unaffected by the development of Basildon—he gave no reply. It is no answer to say, as the Minister said then, and as his predecessor had said on a number


of occasions, that nobody need worry, the development corporation may not want to acquire their property for 10 to 15 years. There is no more difference between that and a burglar knocking on a door and telling the owner that he will not rob him today but in six months' time.
As a result of all this, a blight has settled on all property in the area. One man I know wished to sell his house last year in order to raise the necessary funds to emigrate to Australia. Six different buyers, one after the other, called off the deal because they found that no building society would advance money to them. The development corporation have not touched his house, they may never acquire it, but the legitimate aspirations of this man have been thwarted and his capital, the result of a lifetime of thrift, has been reduced. I would go further and say that the development corporation are now beginning to use pressure to get the land they require. The shadow of the compulsory purchase order hangs over the whole area.
I have in mind the case of a freeholder who, with his father and a brother, owns a number of plots of land which they use profitably as a smallholding. The father and the brother live in houses on the site. The man I have in mind submitted plans for a small dwelling-house three years ago to the local housing authority, the Billericay Urban District Council. The plans were passed and in due time he could have expected a licence to be issued. Now the development corporation want his land. Gone are my friend's hopes of acquiring the house of his dreams in the place where he wants it and, what is perhaps even more important, gone is the livelihood of the family. No price is suggested, it is left to the district valuer. No explanation is given as to how the land will fit in with the development scheme. How can it be? No master plan has yet been issued by the development corporation and, to the best of my knowledge, no master plan is in sight of being issued.
I would hazard a guess as to why that land is required. I have another friend, also a freeholder, who had the temerity to ask the development corporation why they wanted his land. This is the reply he received in a letter from the Chief

Solicitor to the Basildon Development Corporation:
With further reference to your letter, … the reason for the Corporation wishing to purchase the above plot of land from yourself is that they have obtained authority from the Minister of Town and Country Planning to acquire the land to enable them to co-operate with the local planning authority in carrying out a constructive planning policy by offering leases of plots of land in Retention Areas on which disappointed applicants for permission to build elsewhere age prepared to erect their houses.
It is a rather long-winded sentence, but the intention is quite clear. At the end of the letter is the following sentence:
I shall be glad, therefore, if you will consider this letter and let me know your decision as soon as possible as, otherwise, I am afraid it must be assumed you are an unwilling seller and the Corporation will have to consider whether they should exercise their compulsory powers of purchase.
In other words, "If you do not sell, we can jolly well make you. You can build a house, but you can only build it on our terms and on land we are prepared to lease to you." The representative of the Minister gave assurances at the public inquiry which were not worth the paper they were written on.
I would like to speak frankly about this. These people are being robbed. The difference between now and 12 months ago is that a large number now know they are being robbed and they cry out for justice. Ill betide the Government that ignores their plea. I am not asking the Minister to introduce fresh legislation—that would be out of order—but I am asking him to recognise the special nature of the problem and to use his existing powers to ease it.
Of course, I am well aware that the Minister will say, "But these people will be compensated." What sort of compensation are they likely to get? They will get what the district valuer thinks is the market price. What, may I inquire, is the market price in an area where the development corporation are the only buyers? And in any case, am I not right in suggesting that no one will get a price sufficient to buy another property elsewhere with vacant possession since the development corporation can acquire properties under the Planning Acts at less than vacant possession value? The point was made clearly in the first report of the Hemel Hempstead Development Corporation which said, on page 64.


The Corporation is limited to paying no more than the compensation payable on a compulsory purchase in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which excludes some part of the current premium commanded for houses with vacant possession. Save in quite exceptional circumstances, therefore, the Corporation cannot buy by agreement houses so offered. No acceptable method of overcoming this difficulty has been found.
I suggest this hardly makes for a fair deal between a willing seller and a willing buyer. It is rather comparable to the man from the Ministry standing with a lifebelt on the bank of a fast flowing river and offering it to a drowning man in midstream on terms which he can hardly refuse.
There are certain things that the Minister can do without amending legislation. He could revoke the Order designating the area as a new town on the ground that it will be impossible to establish a new town there without causing grave hardship, discomfort and injustice to the people already living there. Such a solution would possibly please a good many people in the area, but it would not please all. I have said nothing about those people who hope to find homes in the area from outside, and far be it from me to suggest that there should be no new town.
I suggest therefore that the Minister should take a course which harms no one. First, he could direct the development corporation to serve no compulsory purchase orders and not to use the threat of that until after the master plan has been completed and published when, of course, all interested parties can see where they stand. Second, he could give a categoric assurance that freeholders whose properties are left unaffected by the master plan will be left in possession of their freehold rights. I do not think that is unreasonable and it would be an easy thing for the Minister to do. Third, I suggest he could use his powers under Section 5 (1) of the New Towns Act, 1946, to treat the area as an exceptional case and to direct the development corporation not to acquire land where freeholders themselves desire to build and in respect of which they have already submitted their plans to the local housing authority. He could also give to those who are dispossessed the opportunity, if they wish to take it, to acquire freehold land elsewhere in the area at an equivalent valuation.
I am sorry not to see the Minister in his place. I intimated to him that I

should be raising this matter, and as he came to my constituency on Saturday and visited the Basildon Development Corporation, I had hopes that he would be here to reply. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to him my appeal to his humanity to remove the cloud of doubt and uncertainty which overhangs my constituency.
The population to which I am referring is exactly half the population which is expected ultimately to be established in the new town. Necessary as new towns may be, if they are founded upon injustice they can never hope to develop that civic spirit which should sustain their communities. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to the Minister certain words which Henry Thoreau once used:
Whatever the human law may be, neither an individual nor a nation can ever commit the least act of injustice against the obscurest individual without having to pay the penalty for it.

8.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): I have seldom listened in this House to a speech which was so far from the actual facts as that to which we have just listened. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) has a heavy responsibility as a Member of Parliament, and I would ask him not to inflame people's fears or to try to create political capital out of their doubts. Rather his function, I would suggest, is to see that those folk get justice.
Why is there a new town at Basildon? That area is an example of Tory landlordism at its worst. There are thousands upon thousands of people who are condemned to live in houses, shacks and caravans, without roads, sewers, water or light. Is that the type of housing or the conditions under which people ought to live? Why was Basildon taken over by the Ministry? It is because the Essex County Council and the Billericay Urban District Council realised there was such an unholy mess in the area. It was the one place which provided every reason for having a plan.

Mr. Braine: I hesitate to break in on what is, obviously, going to be a clever debating speech, but the Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that the Billericay Urban District Council, the Essex County Council and all the others who pressed the Minister to establish a new


town, did so before the full implications of the 1947 Act were fully understood.

Mr. Lindgren: They did so before certain Conservative elements started to arouse in the area passions which were not necessary. The fact is that this is an area in which a very fine piece of social work is to be done. Between the wars these little plots of land were bought by individuals. All sorts of shacks were erected. Many of the people who built them have had to run away because they could not afford even the charge for some of the roads which have been laid. It is an area in which whole stretches of land are unused. The land utilisation of the area was only very slight and, therefore, to put right the ill effects of the lack of planning between the wars, a town is to be built at the request of the local authorities of the area.
It has been said that there will be hardship and distress, and that uneasiness exists; we have heard talk of Hitler and of robbing. But I have a long experience of public life and I say this for Government service, whether it be national or local government: the ordinary individual stands a far better chance of fair and humane treatment at the hands of a local authority or a Government than from a private landlord.

Sir William Darling: Tell that to the dentists.

Mr. Lindgren: We are trying to put right ills other than those of the mouth.
If a new town is to be built, the area must be used to the best advantage. Furthermore, which is the proper body to hold the freeholds of land within a town—the individuals, or the community as a whole? There may be a cleavage between the two sides of the House upon this, but I hold the view, as do the Government, that the land belongs to the people, and that the collective owning and use of the land is a matter for the people themselves.

Mr. Braine: In that case the Government should pay fair compensation.

Mr. Lindgren: Fair compensation is paid. To suggest otherwise is very unkind to folk who have only a very small plot of land or who have, perhaps, very meagre resources; although the plot is small and the shack upon it mean, it is

nevertheless theirs and they derive pride of ownership from it.
Section 5 (2) of the New Towns Act requires that where land is purchased and alternative accommodation is offered, that alternative must be offered on terms
settled with due regard to the price at which any such land had been acquired from them.
I can assure hon. Members that these conditions will be reasonable and that in making the new town we shall not be arbitrary and we shall not take away people's land before it is needed. The land will be acquired as and when it is required for development. No undue disturbance will be caused to any individual, but it is equally true that we can give no undertaking whatever—and, indeed, it would be impossible if we are to provide the new town as it ought to be provided—that the freeholders will have their freeholds left with them.
The development of the new town will mean that the vast majority of the freeholds will have to go, because it will be impossible to develop, shall we say, in the Laindon area, which I know very well, on the basis of the existing freeholders retaining their own plots. It simply means——

Brigadier Clarke: Is the bon. Gentleman advocating the nationalisation of the land here and now? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in his place when his bon. Friend was speaking. I have given 25 years of my life to the development of garden cities——

Mr. Braine: I raised this matter in order to ventilate the feeling, which is very widespread in the area and has already resulted in the removal of almost every Labour councillor from the Billericay Council. I feel very deeply about this, and I see no reason at all why the hon. Gentleman should consistently cast gibes across the Floor of the House. I want to know the answers to my questions. Do I understand, from what he has just said, that no freeholder whose land and property is left unaffected by the master plan can have a guarantee that his freehold will not ultimately be taken away from him?

Mr. Lindgren: In reply to that interjection, I do accuse, not the hon. Gentleman


himself, but some of his friends in the area, who, for political purposes, have been trying to aggravate the reasonable doubts of the people there rather than settling them with the statement that, in fact, they will be fairly treated. There will be no fears set at rest on the basis of allowing the existing freeholders to remain, because, in fact, that could not happen. It would be impossible to create the new town and allow the freeholders to remain.

Mr. Braine: Does the hon. Gentleman realise what he is saying? He says that the freehold rights of many thousands of people are going to be taken away. Is that, in fact, what the Minister intends?

Mr. Lindgren: It is perfectly true, and it has been known for some time. In fact, we could not make a reasonable town in the area unless that was done. Many of these plots are small and ill-shaped; they have on them little shacks and the roads are only cart tracks. If we are to have roads, sewers and all the services which the new town will require, these freeholds must be disturbed. So far as the freeholders are concerned, they will be given an opportunity of being rehoused in the area and, as the Act itself says, the conditions under which they take over their new leases and houses will have relation to the prices which they were paid for their freeholds.
The hon. Member's more definite question concerns those freeholders whose plots may be left undisturbed as the result of the development, and, as I understood his question, it was whether or not these freeholders whose plots, perhaps by a piece of luck, are left undisturbed by the development scheme, will be allowed to retain their freeholds. The answer is that, as the whole area is required for development, their freeholds will be taken and leases given to them. It is equally true that the creation of a new town will make a very considerable addition to the value of land in the area and, if the community itself creates the value, the community surely has the right to take the results of the increased value which it has itself created.
My brief answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the area under discussion is the one area in this country that I know of at least, where in fact one can find all the ills arising from the lack of planning in the years between the wars. This step is

being taken at the request of the local authorities, because of the mess which was created by haphazard development. The local authorities have not the resources with which to correct the mistakes of the past. So many mistakes have been made and the area was in such a bad condition that the local authorities concerned, the Essex County Council and the Billericay Urban District Council, appealed to the Government for help in putting right the wrongs of the past. Therefore, the nation has to come to the aid of Billericay, and put its resources behind it in order to put right these ills of the past.
That being so, if we are going to create a new town, it must be on the basis of the community—who are providing the resources for the redevelopment—taking, the overall ownership, and acquiring also the increased values that arise from the land's development. No portion of land will be taken until it is required for development, and those people who are disturbed through their land being taken over, will be reasonably and fairly dealt with by the corporation regarding their re-establishment. I am certain, having seen the area and knowing it fairly well, that as the town begins to develop, those people who are disturbed will appreciate the value of the new town being created in the area. It may be 10, 15, or 20 years before some freeholds are interfered with, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to co-operate with us to see that——

Mr. Braine: I cannot co-operate in robbery.

Mr. Lindgren: It would be a little more to the credit of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had they stopped these poor people being robbed in the past, because this is an area of land exploitation at its worst.

Mr. John McKay: While I agree in the main with all that the Parliamentary Secretary has said, did I understand him to say that where a man had a little plot of land and had built a house upon that land, and even where that house and that land would not disarrange or harm the general build-up of the district, the Government would still take the freehold of it away from him?

Mr. Lindgren: It is quite plain, and there is no need to get excited about it as do hon. Members opposite. It is perfectly true that, in the past, when a community


developed an area and increased its value, the owner of any land or property in the area had the benefit of that increased value. In this area we shall increase the value by creating a town, and, therefore, the value of land and buildings in the area is bound to rise—a town will be built in place of what is at the moment little more than a collection of shacks and huts.

Mr. Braine: That is absolute nonsense. In the interest of accuracy I must point out that the description of the area by the Parliamentary Secretary is not at all accurate. There are two townships of quite decent development, and but for the war, and the fact that in 1945 there was a change of Government, the area would have developed in accordance with proper town planning requirements.

Mr. Lindgren: We are not going to get far if exaggerated statements are made from either side, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to deny that in the Laindon area, in particular, it would be absolutely impossible for town planning to take place without disturbing existing development.

Mr. Braine: It would not be; that could well be tackled by infilling and allowing people who wish to build their own homes on their own plots to do so, but that is quite outside the orbit of this discussion.

Mr. Lindgren: It is certainly outside the orbit of the discussion upon which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman wishes to lay particular emphasis, but the general picture is that, apart from certain existing road developments, there are thousands of caravans, huts, shacks, and poorly built bungalows without roads, water, sewerage, or lighting. It is necessary to take the whole of this area in order to make a reasonable town out of it.
This is the development of an area for the purpose of bringing in people who cannot be found accommodation in East Ham, West Ham, the Leytons and the East side of London. Therefore, this is not only the redevelopment of an area which has been badly planned in the past but is, in addition, the creation of a new town for the provision of housing for the people of the eastern boroughs of London. That will be done in the course of the next 15 to 20 years and, as I have

said earlier, it will be done humanly, it will be done reasonably and it will be done fairly. No one will be unnecessarily disturbed and no one will be exploited.
But, it is equally true one cannot have a question of individual ownership of land if one is to have a new town created at the expense of the community. This area will become a leasehold area but a leasehold from the community, the community owning the land. This is something vitally different, very much different, from leasehold property areas such as were known in the past, where individual landowners held the land and charged excessive lease rents to individual owners of properties and took their properties at the end of the lease.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We have listened to a rather remarkable speech from the Parliamentary Secretary and one which will have raised more doubts in the minds of Members of this House and of people outside than it has possibly allayed.
I wonder if I may detain the House for a moment by fixing a few of these remarkable statements. In the first place, the Parliamentary Secretary justified the general principle of acquiring freeholds in new towns on the grounds that it was Socialist theory and policy that ownership of the land should be in the hands of the community. If that is so of a new town, then that must be a principle which is applicable to the country at large. Therefore, we have quite plainly, despite all that has passed and all that has been said in recent months, a re-affirmation of the fact that nationalisation of the land is and remains——

Mr. Lindgren: I am sure the hon. Gentleman, even at this hour, does not want deliberately to put into my mouth language I did not use.

Mr. Braine: The Minister said it.

Mr. Lindgren: I said, and I repeat, that for the purpose of creating a new town it is necessary to have single ownership of the land of the area. We believe that, for the purpose of creating a new town, it is necessary to have single ownership of the land, and we believe that single ownership should be in the hands of the community.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I shall come presently to the


argument, which he used at a later stage of his speech, that the acquisition of freehold in a new town was necessary for the purpose of planning the new town. I understood him to say, and it is on record whether I am right or wrong, that it was a principle of more general application. However, I pass from that.
The hon. Gentleman further stated that if there ever was a site in the country which was specially suitable for the building of a new town it was the area in my hon. Friend's constituency, by reason of the mad planning of that area. That is quite a new light on the reasons for the choice of sites for new towns. We now learn from the Parliamentary Secretary that the building of a new town is not an instrument for planned decentralisation of population into areas which are suitable for the growth of a prosperous community, but is merely an instrument for replanning an area of previous bad planning. I do not know whether that represents the view of the Government, but it is certainly a strange new doctrine if that is so, and it will certainly result in many of our new towns being put into very queer positions. I think I may say that no one on this side of the House has any objection—in fact, very much the contrary—to the continuous replanning of areas of bad development, but we do not regard the building of new towns as the proper means of doing that; nor, for reasons which I will come to in a moment, do we regard the acquisition of the freehold in those areas as a necessary condition.
My hon. Friend made a reasonable and temperate request of the Minister, and that was that a definite forecast of the future should be given which would set at rest the minds of persons owning freeholds in the area designated for the new town. He asked, in particular, that where the master plan for the new town, when approved, showed that there would be no alteration in the present layout, the freehold should remain undisturbed and that it should be understood as from now on that it would not be disturbed.
In his reply the Parliamentary Secretary divided the freeholds in the new town area into two categories—the category of freeholds in areas which would have to be replanned, that is, where there would have to be a complete replanning of the present layout, and, on the other hand, freeholds of which the present planning

would not have to be disturbed. He justified the action of acquiring the freehold on different grounds in the two cases. In the first case he said it was necessary, in order to replan that part of the area, that the freeholds should be acquired. It would be out of order for me to argue against that on the ground that it is possible to purchase freeholds and redispose of them, since the New Towns Act as it stands on the Statute Book does not permit of that method being used. Nevertheless, there is force in my hon. Friend's contention that a great deal of replanning can be carried out without disturbance of freeholds provided that the planners have that as one of their objects in view among others. It is not necessary to sweep the board clean over a great part of the area of a new town so that its standard of planning may be brought up to the requisite.
Leaving that category on one side, I come to the category with which my hon. Friend was principally concerned; that is, the freeholders whose freeholds it is not necessary to disturb for planning purposes. It seemed to me that the Parliamentary Secretary was a little confused in dealing with those. He said, in the first place, that they would only be disturbed as and when their land was required for development or re-development. That immediately puts them back in the first category. We are talking about freeholds where development can proceed along the present lines, where replanning is not required.
The Parliamentary Secretary then fell back upon a second argument, and this was possibly the most disturbing and dangerous point in his speech. He said, "We are going to acquire those freeholds because they will appreciate as a result of the building of the new town. We are, therefore, going to acquire them so that that appreciation shall be in the bands of the community and not of individuals." This is an extraordinary justification for the acquisition of freeholds in the area of a new town.
About three years ago the House spent a great many sittings upon a Town and Country Planning Bill, which, in turn, was based on immense research and thought by hon. Members of all parties and which was designed to deal with precisely this question of how the planning of development could proceed, on the one


hand without injuring individuals and on the other hand without placing in their hands undeserved increments of value. The result of all that was the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947—and hitherto the Socialist Party has not expressed itself as dissatisfied with the result.
If that Act is not adequate to secure that objective, let the Government amend it; but do not let them say, "In the new towns, where we have the people in our power, we will use the New Towns Act to secure that objective." It seems to me that there is real justification for the reconsideration of this matter. Presumably, there will be a master plan for all these new towns. Presumably, in a few years' time we should know what will be the shape of things to come. We ought to be able clearly to pick out those areas of existing development which it is not necessary to disturb. What my hon. Friend asks, and it seems to me that it is a request which should be answered not only temperately but also sympathetically, is that in those areas the present freeholders should be assured that they will remain undisturbed in perpetuity.

8.52 p.m.

Brigadier Clarke: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I was disturbed to hear the Minister say that he supported nationalisation of the land. That is what he said in so many words, and he then said—"in the new towns."

Mr. Lindgren: If this is to be used as an occasion for attributing statements to me which I have not made, then perhaps I may once more say, in order that it may be thrice on the record, that there must be single ownership if one is to develop a new town and that we believe the single ownership should be in the hands of the community. I have been speaking on an Adjournment Debate initiated in regard to the development of new towns, not on the question of nationalisation.

Mr. Braine: Perhaps I may correct the Parliamentary Secretary and say that he has been speaking on the subject of safeguarding freeholders' rights in new towns—a subject to which he has very carefully avoided making any reference.

Brigadier Clarke: I was about to say that after we had challenged him on the

nationalisation of the land the Minister corrected himself and said he was referring to new cities. I am interested in an old city and exactly the same thing is going on there. Without having gone to the country on the nationalisation of the land, the Government are nevertheless rapidly acquiring land at every turn. The sooner the country knows that the better. The Minister let the cat out of the bag a few minutes ago, and he has been correcting himself ever since. The fact remains that, at every opportunity, land is being acquired from the owners, and is being taken away from them whether they are agreeable or not.
The owners of a shop, which has been in my constituency for years, want to rebuild but are not allowed to do so. The land has been acquired from them and they do not want to build on land which they do not own. They have been told, however, that they must build on it or go somewhere else. That is only nationalisation coming in small driblets. I am glad the Minister has given us the opportunity of observing this fact because I am perfectly certain that that is the direction in which we are going. Just before the last election, the Secretary of State for War said that the Socialists would not nationalise the land for the time being; they were not going to throw any spanners in the works for the time being—those were his words. I say that spanners are being thrown into the works day and night, and before we have gone much further we shall find that our land has been nationalised.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: I have listened very carefully to all this discussion, and I must say that I have been very much interested in it. After all is said and done I think the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), who initiated it, will have done a piece of good work, for I think the whole question is worth ventilating. There are two considerations which have to be balanced. I agree entirely with the Parliamentary Secretary that, in the matter of social progress, as the value attaching to land increases as the district in which it lies is developed, the increased value ought to go to the people who created it.
None the less it seems to me that in a new town—or any other district at all—where public bodies have to make a


decision whether or not to take over a large area of land in a district they ought to bear in mind this other consideration. Many people like to have a house of their own. They particularly value that. They attempt, when they buy or build a house, to get it on a freehold site, so that the whole property may not only belong to them for life, but to their families after them. When circumstances and progress make it necessary to take over a large tract of land in a district where there are freeholds the corporation—or whatever body it may be—that is to take over the land ought to find some way or means whereby the small family, probably not very well off, but owning its own home and trying to develop its way of life in its own home, and probably sacrificing a great deal to purchase or to maintain its freehold, may be left in possession of its freehold.
The question which the public authority ought to ask itself is: Is it essential to buy all the land round about? Is it possible to leave in the possession of their owners and in the occupation of their owners plots of land with houses on them, whether small individual plots or larger ones on which stand several houses? Do those plots of land interfere with the master plan of development? Can the master plan be modified for the sake of preserving those small freeholds? It seems to me that these questions ought to be considered and answered sympathetically—sympathetically to the little people living in the little houses, especially if those houses are of a sufficiently good quality to satisfy modern housing standards. It seems to me there should be no compulsion in the taking over of the ownership of such little plots, especially if they do not interfere in the general plan of development of the district along the lines of social progress.
I can see the point, of course. I can see the objection of the possibility that the owner of a house on such a plot of land may want not to keep possession for himself or for his family, but, in the future, to sell the property. He may feel that the development of the district has added to the value of his property and he may want to sell it for that reason. The feeling, of course, is that that particular owner ought not to get the increased value of his property because he

has not created it himself. That is one point and one objection that arises.
Could we not allow a family which has achieved its ideal and got a house, and lived in it for years, remain there and pass it on to sons and daughters afterwards, while, at the same time, making provision whereby if they want to leave and sell the house they can obtain only the original value at the time the master plan was made, and not any increased value due to the extension of modern social amenities? I think that is possible. At any rate, let it be examined; let us attempt it; if we can do that it will harm no one, but will help family life.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans): The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) has very powerfully reinforced the most thoughtful arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). I would not have intervened had the Parliamentary Secretary, in replying, not rather ridden off the arguments put to him and used certain words, which I think I took down rightly, imploring my hon. Friend not to arouse passions where they are not already aroused, and then added that he himself had given 25 years of his life to a revolt against Tory landlordism. If that is not arousing passions, what is? Let me say at once that I am delighted to see him looking so well and so young, despite the 25 years of his life that he has given in this cause. As he is one of my very revered constituents, I should be horrified if I felt that he was ageing prematurely.
The arguments advanced from both sides of the House can be settled apart from any prejudice. The issue is purely factual: Can planning take place when the land or part of it is owned privately, or must it all be owned by one central body? It is perfectly clear—and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it well enough in Welwyn Garden City—that there can be privately-owned land and good planning at the same time, which, as I understand it, is all my hon. Friend asked for. He points out what we all know very well, that in nine cases out of 10, a house and the land on which it is built which are owned by a family are much better looked after than when they are rented, when the family do not feel


they have a continuing interest in either the land or the house.
I am not talking, and nor was the hon. Member for Wallsend about large blocks of land and retaining any increased value for the owners. Families, very often in quite humble circumstances, plan to build on small plots of land their own houses of their own design, or of a good design which will fit in with the master plan. Such people should in my view, and in the view of all my hon. Friends, receive the utmost encouragement. Home ownership, which we think should be encouraged, will greatly increase the total value of the new town by the extra care which is put into not only the building but also the maintenance of the site and the house.
I ask the Minister to read what he has said in the morning and to see if there is not something, and a great deal, I honestly suggest, in our deeply held view on this side of the House that home ownership offers a family of ordinary and humble means, and of great means too if it comes to that, something which is well worth all the extra encouragement that any Government of any complexion can give.

9.6 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I would like to take part in this discussion because I am a Member of the House who feels that the creation of new towns in the neighbourhood of London is a disastrous error. I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) in this matter. There are abundant places in this island where new towns could be created without the disadvantages and difficulties with which we are faced. It would be out of order, if I pointed to the technical unwisdom alone of placing nine million people in the most dangerous part of this island.
I do not favour the socialisation of the land as the Parliamentary Secretary does, and I beg to draw his attention to the violence and vehemence of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). The hon. Member has been for many years a profound supporter of the nationalisation of the mines and the nationalisation of anything that he has not got, but when it comes to the nationalisation of a house and a plot of ground, as I hope he has

for himself and family, we know very well how deep Socialism is—it is a skin and a very dirty and ugly skin at that.
When we touch the realities of the thing, we realise that the hon. Member for Wallsend is really with the Opposition in this matter. He recognises and feels very deeply that the ownership of a small plot of land and the house that stands on it, and the right to give it to one's children when one dies, is something which is of the very essence of the value of life, and that the suggestions made by the Parliamentary Secretary are of no value to him. The hon. Member does not want a shilly-shally, empty, valueless existence of that character in this green and pleasant land.

Mr. McKay: I think that the non-Gentleman has gained a wrong impression of what my remarks were intended to imply. I am in favour of all what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and all that the Government are doing, but I hope that, so far as they can, they will try to do the best possible for the holder of a little plot of land.

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We hear him speak, particularly in this House, with vigour and great effect. I never heard him speak with greater sincerity than he has spoken tonight, and in spite of his attempt to make up again to the Parliamentary Secretary, I preferred his first thoughts, and I preferred the first thoughts, for my purpose, of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that he has gone too far tonight. I do not know if he is going to edit HANSARD, because what he said first will be better reading than any edited part. He said, with one of those intense, impressive actions he can cultivate so well, that the policy of His Majesty's Government was to provide the land for the people. That may be very proper, but his words are poor comfort to the people of Wallsend and the new town and the people of Basildon.
We suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a deep-seated passion to own something, to own a house, to own a small piece of land and to have the right to pass it on. That deeply rooted instinct in men and women, not only in this country but all over the world, runs counter to the proposals of His Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend


has suggested that it is possible in a free society to have a variegated pattern for the use of land, some owned by the community, some owned by the freeholder and some by the leaseholder.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Parliamentary Secretary, who has more than his share of the gifts, to devise a system whereby we shall have great, free, beautiful cities in which a variegated pattern of ownership is permitted, where so much of the land is owned, perhaps the greater part of it, by the community, but where there is also the free opportunity for the individual to develop in his own way his own tastes, as in the case of Welwyn Garden City, in consonance with the master plan of the whole community.
I beg the Parliamentary Secretary not to take back to his Minister and to his counsellors this hard and fast view that new cities should be built to one stereotyped pattern, cities not of hope but of hell, cities with no variation, restricted cities with no varieties of human character and inclination but of sterile design. My hon. Friend is pleading for freedom and the right for people to make, within the consonance of the community plan, something better for themselves. Surely that is not out of touch with Socialism. Surely it is not incompatible with the planning of new cities.
I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary takes away with him tonight a little of that freedom and liberty to those who have been faced with this challenge of the new towns. Surely those on the fringe of development which will not take place for 15, 20 or 40 years should not be disturbed. Even under Socialism and the National Health Service, we do not live as long as that once we own a house. Can we have an assurance that the properties not required for the plan itself can be assured at any rate a lifetime's use for the owners, which would satisfy the House and would not be incompatible with humanity for good planning? I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to give the House that assurance.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Awbery: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) wants people to be able to purchase a piece of ground, to build a house upon it and to hand it down to posterity.

Sir W. Darling: I merely share the views of the hon. Member's Friend, the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay).

Mr. Awbery: That was the hon. Member's argument, but that is not the position he upholds today. At the present time a man purchases a piece of ground on which to build a house which is leased for 77 or 99 years, at the end of which period, under the leasehold system, he has to hand the house back to the landlord in a good and habitable condition. He then has to make a bargain with the landlord to remain in the house he has occupied for nearly 100 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "For another 99 years? "] It is usually for 99 years in my part of the country.

Sir W. Darling: What about freeholds, which is the subject of this Debate?

Mr. Awbery: I am talking about the system the hon. Member upholds.

Sir W. Darling: I was speaking only on the subject of this Debate, which deals with freeholders in the constituency of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Awbery: The hon. Member wants a man to be able to obtain a plot of ground, to build a house on it and to pass it down to posterity. I am pointing out that this is not allowed under the system he supports.
In South Wales, particularly in the town I represent, we have cases of people who have occupied houses for 30 and 40 years, and their parents before them, having to hand them back to the landlord. We have cases where companies have purchased the leasehold and compelled the householder to carry out certain unnecessary repairs in order to force him to purchase the land.

Colonel Heath: On a point of Order. Are we discussing leasehold property or freehold property?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): We are talking on the Adjournment, and as long as we do not propose legislation, we can talk about anything we like.

Mr. Awbery: The hon. Gentleman raised the question in regard to the new towns. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, raised another issue, and I am answering him as far as the leaseholders are concerned.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) was not fair to my hon. Friend, who did in fact, mention the word "leasehold" once when describing the different sizes and variegated patterns of the life he wanted to see in the new towns instead of the stereotyped pattern, which is the intention of hon. Members opposite. I am not at all sure that they want to see an entirely leasehold pattern which the hon. Gentleman has just tried to describe. The circumstances in which a person lives in a house and pays money in the form of rack rent—I use that in technical sense, not with the meaning which hon. Members like to read into it—are well known. We ought to be clear what we on this side of the House are advocating. It is the variegated pattern of life of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) was such a staunch upholder until he thought he was losing favour with the Front Bench opposite. I am sure that everyone, unless completely submerged in prejudice, agrees with every word the hon. Gentleman said.
On the question of leasehold, surely there is something to be said for it if the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to uphold it as the one and only system of land tenure in a new town. A reasonable person would say there was room both for leasehold and freehold. I am sorry to go into this subject in such detail, but the hon. Member for Bristol, Central, is not very clear about the fundamental difference between the two, despite the fact that he has been asking Questions once every two or three weeks for over a year.
We say that in the interests of continual planning through generations some part of the land should be held under the leasehold system. The same principle has operated in London, and buildings here are still held under the leasehold system. To occupy land under leasehold system means paying merely a small ground rent, which is so much of the regular rental value on the property, which consists of the ground and the substantial building upon it. I would commend to the hon. Member a study of what the surveyor calls the valuation tables, and if he can understand arithmetic, he will see that a great deal of what he has

said was the sheerest "bunkum." I support everything my hon. Friend has said.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I was amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery). He appeared to me to be abusing the very system that has been adopted as the basis of the development in the new towns. Those of us who took an interest in the New Towns Bill and also in the Licensing Bill, when under discussion upstairs, recognised fully the evil of a closed shop of leasehold tenure into which we were being driven. That is why we criticised the system freely at the time. All these things should be known to the hon. Member for Bristol Central. He should know that within a short distance of the constituency which he represents it is possible to buy freehold land with a freehold house upon it, so that it is absolute nonsense to pretend that in his part of England it is impossible to buy freehold land. I am quite sure that he will wish to withdraw that remark when he thinks more about it. There is no monopoly of land in that part of England any more than any other part of it.
I endorse what has been said about the possibility of developing freehold land which is held by private individuals on lines just as sound as it can be developed if it were held by the State as the single landholder. It is also true that the better planned parts of London were so planned when they were entirely in the ownership of private individuals. Equally it is true in the more striking case of Edinburgh, some parts of which make Edinburgh one of the best designed cities in Europe if not in the whole world. In that city, that exquisite planning on the part of private individuals is now proving to be one of the greatest dollar earners in the country. We have the same demonstration in other cities in England where good planning has been carried out.
How much better has that planning been, with its variety and scope for the individual expression of design, than the squalid uniformity of central planning and central design allowing for nothing in variety and spirit of design on the part of those who wish to live in the houses. We have only to think of the grim glamour of Aldershot compared with the beauty of Shrewsbury and some of the


cities in the West of England to realise that it is complete and absolute nonsense to say that no planning is possible as long as land remains within the free ownership of one person. It is possible so to impose rules, orders or restrictions on land where they are necessary, much as I detest them where they are unnecessary, to ensure that planning can be properly carried out in the interests of the community as a whole. If that were not the case there would not be a high road in England or a street in any city. Of course, the whole argument falls to the ground.
Rather than embitter the minds and hearts of all those who own land I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that he was warned by the leaders of the Socialist Party at the time of the General Election not to say anything about the nationalisation of the land. Why? The answer was made quite clear in print. Nobody must say anything about nationalisation of the land because it was extremely unpopular with the farmers, and the Socialist Party wanted to get the farmers' vote.
Instead of putting bitterness and fear into the hearts of all those who own land, why should not hon. Gentlemen opposite try to get their co-operation in planning the future of this country? Why try to smack them in the face every time this matter is mentioned? Why try to go on subtly underground, planning the nationalisation of the land, while pretending that you are not going to do it? That is not honest. It is not only in the new towns that we have to face this question: "Can we plan properly and lay out all the buildings so long as the land is in the hands of private individuals, or must it be in the hands of the State before we can begin to plan?" We have to think not only in terms of the new towns and cities but also of the land itself.
It makes one shudder to think what His Majesty's Government, if they were composed as they are today, would do when they carried out their proposals to nationalise the marginal land of this country, which is what they threatened

to do had they been returned to power with a sufficient majority to carry it out. I do not think that I am misleading the House in saying that.
I wonder what they would do. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us. What have they in mind as regards marginal land? I wonder what they have said among themselves about the treatment of marginal land if they nationalised it. Would they allow anybody to build a cottage? Would they allow a retired farm worker, assisted by his pension and the earnings he has saved, to build his own cottage—near the place where he has worked, on the soil which he has farmed and every inch of which he knows, by the trees which he planted—and bring up his children in the great tradition in the same way as people might wish to do who are just outside the verge of the territory described as "marginal land" and are not under State ownership? Is it likely that State ownership of land in that sense would be popular compared with the free ownership of land where a man can develop his own home in the way he wants to outside the marginal land? We can imagine the feelings of the two classes of people.
The Parliamentary Secretary has done an evil service to his party tonight, but, by heaven, I think he has done a great thing in the cause of free ownership and of the free individual in this country by the words he has used. He has driven away quite a cloud of doubts from the minds of those who were really not quite sure that State ownership was such a serious matter in the minds of His Majesty's Government. He has made it quite clear that it is and that His Majesty's Government, given a free hand and without a strong Conservative Opposition, would impose State ownership on land as widely as they could. He made that clear and I am grateful to him for I think it will help this country a lot now that the clouds of doubt are dispelled.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes past Nine o'clock.